WILLIAMS V. STOLZENBACH.

39

It consisted, also, in the fact that it i!'l a single piece when put upon and fastened to the key-board, and thereby it possesses advantages over detached and separate pieces, whether made of ivory or celluloid. The complainants'record is quite clear on this point. For example, the inventor endeavored to fasten separate celluloid keys in the same manner that ivory strips are secured to the wood, but was unsuccessful, because, as he testified, separate celluloid strips warped the wood of the keys in a series of short curves, which difficulty was prevented by the use of a continuous sheet. When the single sheet is cut into a series of strips for each key, before being cemented to the wood, the invention, as described and claimed in the patent, no longer exists j beca1}.se, no matter how skillfully the separate strips are manipulated so as to be placed upon the board with ease, the invention was the continuous strip or roll, as contrasted with separate strips for each key. The motion is denied.

WILLIAMS

v.

STOLZENBACH

and others.

(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Penn8ylvania. .l"ebruary 6, 1885.)
L PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ApPARATUS FOR OBTAINING AND WASHING SAND. Letters patent No. 206,514, for an improvement in apparatus for obtaining and washing sand, granted July 30, 1878, to David O. Williams, construed, and held to be limited to a combination having as one of its elements a vessel of water in which the screen is immersed, and therefore not infringed by defendants' apparatus, the screen of which works in the unconfined water of the river. 2. SAME-OONSTRUCTION OF OLAIMS. It is beyond the province of jUdicial conetruction to eliminate from a claim an explicitly declared constituent of a combination merely because it is in fact unnecessary in effecting the desired result.

In Equity. D. F. Patterson, for complainant. George H. Christy, for respondents. ACHESON, J. The plaintiff's invention relates to apparatus for ob· taining and washing sand, and, as described in his specification and illustrated by the accompanying drawings, consists of a cylindrical riddle or screen,D, "the lower portion of which is immersed in aves· sel of water." 0, through which riddle or screen and vessel flows a stream or currents of water, in combination with an ordinary dredg. ing-boat having elevators for supplying the interior of the screen with unwashed sand, a receptacle, F, for receiving the washed sand, and elevators for removing it therefrom. As the screen rotates, the sand becomes separated from the coarser materials by the revolving move· ment, and passing through the meshes drops into the vessel, 0, from which it is removed and thrown into the receptacle, F, by means of

40

FEDERAL BEPORTER.

wings or projecting longitudinal flanges attached to the outside of the screen. The specification states that the riddle or screen, D, in its "construction and operation," is substantially the same as that described in a previous patent, granted April 23, 1867, to David Furnier. That this is so, is evident upon comparing the two patents; and it maJ{ be added that in the Fumier apparatus the cylindrical screen is provided with exterior wings or longitudinal flanges like those above mentioned, and performing the same function. The vessel, C, and the receptacle, F, are partly sunk below the surface of the stream in which the dredging-boat is operating, and the inflowing supply of water to the vessel, C, (to take the place of that swept out of it with the washed sand) is obtained by means of openings or holes in the side of the vessel below the water-line. Of this feature of the apparatus the specification thus speaks:
"The riddle or screen, D, is placed in a vessel, C, into whieh is constantly flowing through openings, x, currents of water, whereby the lower portion of the riddle, D, is al ways immersed in water, and a current of water is constantly flowing through the riddle, thereby keeping the meshes of it clean."

There are four claims.

The first is as follows:

"A.. screen or riddle immersed in a vessel of water, and through which IS flowing a stream of water, in combination with an ordinary dredging-boat for supplying the said screen with unwashed sand, substantially as herein described, and for the purpose set forth."

The second claim is for the same combination, with the addition of elevators for supplying and charging into the interior'of the screen u;nwashed sand. The third claim. is for the same combination as the second, with the addition of a receptacle for receiving the washed sand and elevators for conveying it therefrom. In each of these claims occurs the language, "a cylindrical screen immersed in a vessel of .water." The. claim is for the combination of the screen, D, the vessel, C, the receptacle, F, two elevators, and four designated chutes. It is quite clear to me, from the descriptive portion of the specification, that the inventor regarded it as essential to the desired end that the water in which the screen rotates should be segregated by an inclosing vessel. . The riddle or screen, he instructs· us, is to be
"placed in a vessel into which is constantly flowing, through openings, x, currents of water," etc. He perhaps thought that unless the water

was thus cut off from the body of ihe stream the sand would be washed out of the screen by the action of the natural current, or by reason of the agitation of the water. But with his conjectures we need not concern ourselves. It is enough that by his explicit language, "a riddle or screen immersed in a vessel of water," is a constituent of the several combinations claimed. Tate v. Thomas, 30 O. G. 345; S. C. 22 FED. REP. 660. Now, indisputably, the defendants' screen is not immersed in a vessel of water, nor placed in any vessel whatsoever. On the contrary,

WILLIAMS V. STOLZENBACII.

it rotates and performs its work in the open river. The defendants, therefore, do not rise the plaintiff's patented invention, unless the immersion of the screen directly in the river is the same thing as its immersion in a vessel containing water let in from the river by means of the openings described in the plaintiff's specification, or other equivalent means. But who will affirm this? It is in vain to urge that, the use of a vessel being, in fact, unnecessary, the claims should be read as if they called broadly for the immersion of the screen in the water of the river. To eliminate what is a plainly declared element of a combination is beyond the province of judicial construction. Water-meter Go. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332. Besides, from first to last, the specification contains no hint that the inclosing vessel could be dispensed with, and I think it manifest that it had not occurred to the inventor that the screen could successfully perform its work in the open stream. It is, indeed, true that underneath the defendants' screen there is a pan or vessel which catches the screened sand. Their screen, however, is not immersed or placed therein, but rotates and does its whole work above it, in the unconfined water of the river. The ontside wings move therein, but they are no part of the screen, and their work is distinct from and follows the screening. The prior state of the art here was such that the plaintiff's claims were necessarily very narrow. Dredging and sand-washing boats equipped with cylindrical screens, elevators to feed the screen, receptacles to hold the washed sand, and elevators to carry it away, were old. How much the plaintiff borrowed from Furnier we have already seen. Moreover, Furnier's first claim calls for a hollow screen revolving on an axis, with one portion always immersed in a vessel,· through which a stream of water constantly flows from some convenient reservoir. Now, what more has the plaintiff done than devise his vessel, C, with sides raised above the water-line so as to embrace the screen, and provided with its water-supply openings? Within the restricted limits of his claims, his patent may well stand; but, as the defendants do not use the plaintiff's vessel, or any equivalent therefor, they do not infringe his rights. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the plaintiff's bill, with costs.

42

J/'EDERALREPORTER.

FARMERS' FRIEND MANUF'G CO.

v.

CHALLENGE CORN-PLANTER

CO.

(Oircuit Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

January 16,1885.)

PATENTS FOR .LNVENTIONS-REISSUE No.10,155-CoRN-PLANTER. Heissued letters patent No. 10,155, issued to the J!'armers' Friend Manufacturing Company as assignee of Michael Hunstetler, OD July 11, 1882. is not for the same invelltioll covered by the original letters, and is invalid.

In Equity. Wood If Boyd and E. W. Withey, for complainant. Stem If Peck and Edward Taggart, for defendant. BAXTER, J. This is a bill to enjoin an alleged infringement ot reissued letters patent No. 10,155, issued to the complainant, as assignee of Michael Hunstetler, on July 11, 1882. We have not the time to enter upon a fnll discussion of the facts of the case, and hence will content ourselves with a simple announcement of the conclusion to which we have arrived on one question made and relied on by the defendant. In a former suit, prosecuted by the complainant in this court against the Waite Manufacturing Company, for an alleged infringement of the same reissued letters patent, we rendered a decree in complainant's favor, affirming their validity, and ordered an account of the damages. This, of course, would be conclusive of this case on that point if the facts of the two cases were the same j but the defendant did not intrdduce in the former case any testimony in support of its defenses. The decree made therein was predicated upon the prima facie case made by the production of complainant's said reissued letters patent and proof of the alleged infringement; but here the defendant comes with full proof. Among other testimony, it has put in evidence a copy of the originalll3tters patent, and insists that upon comparison thereof with the reissued letters patent it will appear that the latter is not for the same invention covered by the former. The first claim of the original patent is in these words: (1) In a llayingthe rear main fraII}e mounted on supporting wheels. thl! front runner-frame hinged or pivoted to the main frame, and operated by an elevating and depressing lever pivoted to the main frame. having its front end slotted and connected to the runner-frame by a bolt passing through said slot. in combination with the shaft, A. and lifting hand-lever, D. rigidly attached to said shaft, for elevating, depressing, and controlling the runner-frame, substantially as herein set forth. A reissue was applied for and obtained, in which the foregoing claim was expanded into the four following claims: (1) In a corn-planter having the rear main frame mounted on supporting wheels and the front runner-frame hinged or pivoted to the main frame. the combination of a foot-treadle and a hand-lever adapted to be used in conjunction or independently for the purpose of elevating or depressing the runners. 8ubstantildly as herein set forth. (2) In a corn-planter having the rear main frame mounted on supporting wheels and the front runner-frame hinged or