FALLS RIVET CO. tl. WOLFE.

465

Manifestly not. The defel1danthas not adopted the combination of the claim. He sells but one element of it. It is urged that he should be held liable because his device" is capable of being bent" so as t2 infringe. But this argument would apply with equal force to an um· brella-slide holder, a bale-tie, or a hair-pin. The complainant cannot invoke the doctrine of Wallace v. Holmes, 9 BIatchf. 65, and analogous authorities, for the obvious reason that the defendant's fastener is susceptible of a perfectly legitimate use, which the complainant himself has taken paipsto point out, Snyder v. BunneU, 29 Fed. Rep. 47. Tojustify 8 decree for infringement, actual proof must be presented of the defendaQ,t's illegal acts. It will not do to substitute therefor suspicion and conjecture. As the complainant must fail upon this branch of the <laBe, it is unnecessary to examine the other defenses presented. The bill is dismissed.

FALLS RIVET

Co. et al.

".WOLFE

et ale

(CM'cu'lt Court, W. D. PennsyliVanw. November 12, 1889.)

.1-

.P.t.TBl'lTS FOR

Letters patent No. 808,872, for atl improvement in friction clutches, granted to William D. Brock on December 9, 1884, construed, and held not to be infringed by friction clutches manufactured under and in accordance with letters .patent No. 812,122, granted to Harry W. Hill on February 10, 1885· Brock's first Claim, as originally filed, was for "the ·combination, with a .shaft, and a loose pulley adapted to run freely on said shaft, of a .clutch rigidly secured to said shaft, having two inversely moving radial jaws, adapted to orie upl>n the .periphery, and one against the interior, of the pul1ey flange, said jaws being connected, by suitable mechanism, with a laterally moving sleeve and shiftIng leTer, whereby they may be simUltaneously' opened and closed as said lever is moved towards the right sn;d left;" but, the examinE\r having ruled that the words "suitable mechanism" rendered the claim "vague and 'indefinite," Brock struck them 'out, and 'substituted therefor "lever J, link, I, and lever, F." Held, that the constituents thus into the claim are material; that the claim should be construed strictly all'ainst the patentee, and in favor of the public; and that a mechanical connection between the clutch jaws and the shifting lever Is an essential part of tlte combination.
'

CLUTClIES-INFRINGBMBNT.

.. BAHlli",,:CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM.

"SAME.

Brook and Hill were contemporary independent improvers Of an old mechanism, the sUbject of many prior patents, and perfected by progresslve;s¥lps, .and each Is entitled- only 'to his own speclilc form of device.

In Eql?lty.

Livinga{pn Gifford, for complainants. Watson & 1'hw'ston and Georqe H. Ch1'iaty, for respondents. Before MCKENNAN and ACHESON, JJ.

ACHESON, J. This suit is brought for the infringement of letters patent No. 308,872, for an improvement in friction clutches. granted to William. D. Brock on December, 9, 1884, upon an application filed April 18, 1884. The plaintiffs are the Falls Rivet Company, assignee, under certain reservations, of the patent, and Brock, the patentee. The V.40F.tio.8-30

riDERALREJ'PORTER, vol. 40. 'agents' of thij Hill' Clulch-Works, Qf Harty an!!. infringing 'facttired at those works underlEltters paterit No. said 'Hillol,1 'February 10, 1885; upon an application tiled Ocoober6, 1884. :'Both :thesepatents relate to a; well-known arid extensively used produce!frictiori'al.engagemeht, class .ofdevices,which are intenqed and thus to. establish atpleasure'si Common state of Ihdtion between's. pUlley mountooon of the mechanism also mounted thereon" one of the\wo being fast updn the shaft, and the .other loose u'ponit. " The proofs show,that, for many years before Brock's 'application for a plitent; friction in lI.great,diversityofforms ,were in use, and that a nilmber,probablymore than 800, patents 'on such devices' hiMrfoeengranted"ih"the United Many of those patents are in evidence here. They disclose mechanisms greatly differing in details, consistingjn levers, links, wedges, etc., to bring into operation the friction blocks or jaws through the longitudinal movements of a sliding sleeve on the shaft; and they also exhibit conand oper!ttiQnof the friction blocks siderable or jaws, and in the arrangement of the frictional surfaces which are to be engaged. Home of the patents,sho,w .flanges '8t,iright,'angles to the shaft, and clutch-jaws arranged to bear against the opposite sides of such a ,. ?l'jaws-ale ,thrustraflIally outwand agamstthil.lnner surface,ofacyhndl'lcal flange. ,lln .Thus Btowri's !patent of seated by means of a dove-tailed tongue and,· gIlQO;Y6, on a fixed -arm.' ,ip-tners of these patents sho\Vtijaw. on the :on Q.fthecylinqtjClil'pulley and)o,actQatedbys;uita8S respectively, 'illtoengagement wit? the tqbe; released therefrom. ,patent of:' 1875 shows a rocking, plate, centrally pivoted The, to carryi,qg)wobi1lke-jawa; to hear, one ontheiniJiiie,and the other ,?n' theolltside, of tberitil of a driving -pul. ,

'fund'p.nts:

''VI

to

,onthe,iJlsk'le"of"therimof ,the.driving'pulley,the'Jbrake-jaw. 'withthe"sAttl'e'·force oD,the-dutside'\.'''ofthenmofthe ·<: ,',' '. '
i ,: "

'l,. \, _I .. , '

"It will be understood by this that whenever the

.' ',,:11::,',_,'

F", ·Presses

-,

.:';

F'_' presses

.'

.'

The Havens patent of 1879 shows a rocking lever, to which, on opposite sides of its pivot, two friction jp,ws, a;s to bear, one on the outer,andthe other on the mnel', face ola cyhtl'dl'lana· tbckipg level cal pulley with a sliding sleeve on the shaft 'that by the m6vementsofthe lattetthe two jaws are forced, re!lpe9tiv:ely, inwardly and to gripth y in-tellloged'l/!a'nge; or in oppOsite di'reetiohs Uere tIle jaws do 'not, haV:liavise-like action, 'foi',. when .grippingt4if unless:it beat the edges,'9f 'thell' mnel'ends.·, The Issued on May'27 ,1884, upon an -application '.filedlDecembet 21, i883, sho'IVs tWo 'inversely rilbvingjaws,
, ,I, :

!

I' , .

'r', .

.

RIVET CO.· II.· 'WOLF1l:·..

.on saU sq!'ft. of

duecUy .oppointe' sIdes of 'th'e cylIndncal wIth a gl'l'p: But here there is no rocker or other device connecting the tWei jaws, 'by' means 'of whichihe force moving ODe jaw could be transmitted to':the other jaw. and promote its movement in the opposite direction. ' Such, in brief; was the state of the art whtin WilliamD. Brock devised his friction clutch. ;,His patent shows two inversely and radially moving jaws, lettered, respectively, Land K, connected with each other by a r{)ckinglever, J, one bfttle. jaws being adapted tobeal' upon thfl outer face of the cylindrical pulley flange, and the other to bear upanUs inner face, and together exerting' a vise-like ,action. The shanks of the opposite sides of afl.X':ed arm, G, projecting radially from 'il.' hub or sleeve, H, which is fast to the shaft. The sliding shanks of' the connected with the l'ockinglevel', and theyarEfheld:against the opposite sides of the fixed arm" G,by bolts, M,M;butthe patent states that dove-tailed tongue and grooved ways maybe substituted·:. The moy-emant of the jaws is 'effected .by the vibration'of :the rocking lever, J', which is pivoted to the fl.!Ked arm, G, between the oppositely arranged sliding shanks of the, jaws; The rockingleveris provided with .circular enlargements, OandP, which operate in slots'in the shanks of the jaws, and, by bearing against the ends of these slots, throw the jaws towards each other or apart as the rocking lever on itepivot. ,The rocking lever is provided with a lateral of which is connected by a link, I, and by what is lever, F," to a collar or,sleeVle,E, adapted to slide longitudlna:l1y on 'the shaft, and which is moved back and forth by an attached shifting lever. a, of ordinary construction. I is a freely link, pivoted at ,'one end to the rocking lever, J, and at the other end to the so-called '(lever, F," which latter, when inaction, is a rigid' attachment tothe sliding aleev6,ffioving with it tis if it, were an integral ,part. The '''lever, F," is rigidly held and adjusted lit any desired the sleeve, E, by a "Screw, b, and nUUl,:'d; When it is desired to (Jommuni(Jate llloti()n from the revolving: pulley to the shaft, the ahifting'lever, S.' is moved t() the right, and thereby motion is communicated from the sleeve, E, though the" lever,'F," and link, I, tothe rocking'lever, J, whereby its long arm is thrown upward anddts short arm downward, thereby moving the jaw,K, outward, while the jaw, L, is drawn inward, and ,the 'pulley flange is thus firmlyp;ral3ped between theII1. To stop the motion of the Shllft, the shifting lever, S; is moved towards ,the (says the specification] all the connecting mechariism:betweenliaid lever,S, and said jaws is inversely moved, and as shown in Fig. 2, thus relieving the pulley:from the grasp:()f said 'jaws." ' ,y , The 'patent has three claims. The first claim is as follows: , .. II loost> pI/Hey tq run freely

aclutch rigidly secllredtusaid shaft; two inversely antl'otleagainst tilovtngratltl\l jaws, allapted 'tllenKage, OIie upon the the interior., of the pulley flange. said jaws being connected by 'lever. J. link.

FEDERAL REPORTER,

vol.

.0.

I. F. with a laterally movillg ,sleeve whereby they may be simultaneously opened .and closed as said lever is moveci towards the right an!lleft, slibstantially as set forth. It . . The other claims need not be qnotedat length. Each includes specifically every element which enters into the clutch mechanism, and the second claim is further limited by calling for the. bolts, M, M, and the circular enlargements, 0 and P, while the third cill-im calls for the screw, h, and adjusting nuts, d, d. In the Hill frictionclntch, as described in his patent, and as mnnufacturedby him and sold by the defendants, are to be found two inverselymoving radial jaws, adapted to engage, one on the periphery, and the other against the interior, of a cylindrical pulley flange, the two jaws being coupled by a rocking lever, pivoted . toa. fix'eQ ra<;iial arm, Hill's and their engagement with,the flange beirlg with rocking lever, however, does not haVe circular enlargements and correspondingslots in which;to operate, but ·hal? ;twopivot pins, which reshanks:, Qf the j!ltv:s. Nor hM his rocking -epectively engage with lever any tateral extension in the line of the shaft, but a long arm, directed inwardly towards the shaft. Neither is. it connected.by any meGhaism is this: mechanism with the sliding sleeve. His A link connects the sliding sleeve witil the adjaCent arm of: lever, which is interposed between ·the link and ,the inwardly directed long arm' of the rocking lever. In the Jorward end, of ,the' bell-crank lever there is a set-screw, adapted to bear against the pendellt arm of the rocking lever, so as to push it inwardly to close the jaws. But the bell-crank lever is not coupled with, not' does it bear any pulling relationto, the rocking leveri and therefQre ,when the sliding sleeve Ii;! retracted it merely takes the set-screw o\1t of the way ofthe .rocking lever, and the opening. of the,iaws is accomplished by other means. To this as to force end, .Hill's olutch is provided with a coiled the clutch jaws open as soon as the;shifting lever moves' back theslid:ing sleeve. Hill's .specificati<>n states that the spripg may be omitted, as the greatercentl'ifugal force to whicbt4e outer jaw is. subjected, and which tends to throw it away from the flange, is transmitte!! by 'means of the and that the .rocking lever to the .inner jaw, so as to move it release of buth jaws from engagement ",ith the flange may t.hus be effected ,;withoutother agency. But in practice the,emploYIPent of the spring has been found to be. indispensable, and the jawlilare opepQY its action, the centrifugal force co"operating to·effect their release from 'the f!.a,ng'¥. lri:this connection it is worthy of remark that Brock's specificution no reference whatever to centrifugal force, although l;t is now claimed by ·..t he.. plaintiffs that .the centrifugal . cQunterQalancing of the cl:utch jaws is , a most valuable and distinguishing characteristic of .his: In disposing of the case, the firstq,uestionto'becpn!ddered is wb-at, ifany, ,n.ov:elty exists. in Brock's construction. That all the !:Jlplllents ':h.e old is not to be dO\lbted·· 'The plaintiftS'assert th'at"the ,gistpf hisinveution is 8ubstantiallyin ,the fi'rstsix lines of his ,,', '. , .: first claim, viz.:.·
,

.TALLS RIVET .CO·.·I1. WOLn;.

469

"The combination,withasnaft. and a loose pulley adapted to run freely on said shaft. of a clutch l'igidly secured to said shaft, having two inversely moving radial jaws. adapted to enj:(age, 'one upon the periphery, and one against the interior, of the puney flange." ' The alleged new results are- First, a vise-;like grip of the cylindrical pul. ley flange; and, secondly, a centrifugal counterbalancing of the jaws, promoting their easy release from the flange when the shifting lever is employed for that purpose·. But it was old, as Brown's patent shows, to seat an inner friction jaw against a fixed radial arm; and certainly Brock was not the first to employ an outer jaw in conjunction witll an inner one for frictional . engagement with the cylindrical pulley flange. Nor was the vise-like grip in itself novel. That feature is to be seen in Daw,,: son's patent. Neither was it new to couple an inner and an outer friction jaw by a rocking lever, so as to bring the two jaws simultaneously into engagement, one with ,the inside face, and the other with the outsidE! face, Qfa cylindrical pulley flange. This arrangement of thejawl! 1;Uld PlodE! of actiqn !lre to be found in tlleHavens friction clutch. True, there do not press exactly against opposite sides of the same part oOhe flange,:butqtllerwise there is a agreement between tIle Ul;tvens clptch and the Brockc1utch, as regards the matter under consideration. They both act upon the same..principle,. and in each the fric-tipn jaws so· move as to bear. against the opposite faces. ()f an in,terposed cylindrical flange. Furthermore. it is obvious from the very nature of the construction that in the ,Havens clutch the excessive centrifugal forCE! of. the outerjawope,rates through the rocker upon the inner jaw in the .sameway as it does in the Brock clutch, thereby contributing to the r&7 lease of the jaws from their engagemelltwith the flange. The plaintiffs' expert admits that to some extent the case. It seems to us, theIl, that the only new thing which Brock here did was to seat the stems or -shanks of ,the two ja",s-the outer one as' well· as the inner one-against .a so that both jaws should move radially in the same line,. and thps .engage the cylindricalfiange with a vise-like grasp. Certainly this was: no great advance upon :what others had already achieved·. And just her.e it is to note the facts connected,with tpe origin of the rival friction clutches involved in. this suit. Brock completed his clutch in the spring of 1884. and Hill completed his clutch'in the month of -gust of the same year. The former resided in Wisconsin; the'latter in Alabama. They were cpntemporary independent improvers, each igno,. rant,ofwha.t .other was doing. Yet each arranged the two friction, jaws so that their shanks should slide on of the same ra.., dial. arm,}lnd the ja,ws ;against the opposite faces of the cylindricaJ flange with a vise-like action. The coincidence deepens the impression produced by a contemplation of the prior state of the art, that this arrangement of the parts required nothing but the exercise of ordinary me,chanical skill. But if it be conceded that the subject-matter of Brock's improvement is what the plaintiff8 allege, and that it really involved invention, still, in our judgment, he has imposed such limitations upon his claims that

here .. ,. Immedt!ltely the are the w,otqs:,J · "Said jaws being connected by link. J:. lever. ally moving sleeve and shifting lever, whereby they lDay be simultaneously opened and closedassaidiever is moved. towardstMrigbtandleft." Nowiby e'1ety sonnd, rule of construction, some positive effect must be given 'to thislanguage;i' The constituents here named are as much part of the combination as'the inversely moving radial jaws themselves; and wheh w.e look into the ;bbdy of the We findtbat· they' are santiaJ tot-he operation., 'The only method therein' set forth for opening the JawS, is by meansofthe shifting lever,S,'Bnd the scribed-mechanism co1'lnecting it' with the rocking lever; and no other agency to ,accomplis1l'tliafresult" or 'tbaid in accomplishing·it, is hinted at., We think, then, is anutl.avoidable conclusion:that'B mechanicaldotinection between the clutch-jaw;s thellhifting le'V'er is a mateof the combination. Bnotov. Railway 00.,121 ,U'o' S. 617 1 7 SuP/Ct. Rep. 1843; McQ>rmic7c".Graham, 129U. S. 1,9 'Sup. Ct. Rep. Hill's clutch does not lifive such a corinection; and, as we baveal'ready 'seen, tMopening of the jaws in his machine is not effected by,the'sbifting lever, but by distiricdydifferentmeans. here it'is 1,6"be '9verloo1l::ed that in the first claim, as originally filed, the ll\nguage:tlmplbyed was; "liaid jaws being connected by suitable mechanism with a Iaterallymoving sleeve,"etc. ,and that, the examiner having ruled that 'tllewpMs "suitablemechl1nism" rendered the claim «vague and indenrtite,'''; Brbckstru<Jk them out, I,andlever,' F.". action requires that theclaimshaU· be constroed strictly againsHhepatentee, andili favorofthepl1blic. Fay v. OtYrdesman,109 U. S: 3 Sup. 01;. Rep. 236j Sargent v.Lock 00., 114U. S. 63, 5 SupH:Jt;'Rep. 1021. .. ,.' " Finiilly:,it is verycleal" that Brock's in"ention is not one ofa."pnmary ehanwte.r."· He was a mere improver of an (lId deiice. This 'field of in..; vention ,liadbeen thoronghlyworked over before 'Brock entered it. the most',hetookbutasinglestep him; thElD,as an: case; W'ethihk,(airlycOnies 'within'thEi ptiliciple stated in Railwar)'Co.v. Sayles,97V. S'. "but if the advance towatdstp.e thing desire.tJil! gradual,and.proce,eds step by step,sothat no One can claim the cbrriplete whole,thenaa:ch is entitled only to the specifio form of device which hepri;dl1ce8,and every other inventor is entitled tohisdwn specific form,';o long as itdiffersftonl those of his (lOlIlpeti¥>l'll; and doesno.t include :'. .. ' Let a'decree be dra'YndiStnissing bin of complaint, with costs.
i ' ,

o

the charge

I

'I"

.

'

'

. '

; ·.if,.l

'"

CLEMENT'

co.

Co.

fl. UPSON

BAB'r

co.

et ale

CLEMENT MANUF'G

11. UPSON

&

HART CO.

(Oircuit OO'Wl't, D. OonnecUcut. November 20, 1889.)

L

.:l.SU....INTEREST .0]1'

Where a. patentee grants,to a 'complainant" the exclusive right, liberty, and privilege to make, use, and sell" a patented invention, thE! full unexpired term tlJ:ereof, and of all 'reissues, renewals, and improvements, , throughout the United ,S'tatEllland the tetrltlOries,the complainant to pay the royalties agreed upon in a "separate agreement, and it,does not appear whether s)]ch grant is an abso11.lte Or de'feasible conveyance. tnecomplainant must joili the owner of the legal title in a suit ,to enjoin'the infringement of the patent. . In such suit, COmplainant'!! allegations thg,t, by mesne 'assignments and it became, prior to' the suit, and now is, the party interested iii said letters patent, "all.Of whioh, bY,' said. asSign.ment, nd grants, now in co,urt pr04uc,ed, an.d s.h0WD, will more fUlly appear," sufficiently show cOmplainant.'. intQr8et, when coupled Wfth the profert exhibit. .,', ,' ,
:0..

Pl&.TEl'ITSl!'OR INVE:N'TIONS-AcTIO!f POR INFRINGEMENT-PARTIES.

,

In Equity. On bill for injunction. ,Maynadier &: Boo;eh,' for complainant. ,John'P.': Baraett, ' for defendants.,
S$MAN j J. is a demurrer to'Ut" com plairlant'sbin in equity 'for an injunction against 'the infringemel1t of two pafents. The bill alleges 'that'tqecomplainant; "by mesne assignments and grants," is the party intereSted inletters "pateni'No. 241,471, dated MatH, 1881, to James Beecher, arid makeS profert ofsaid assignments .By the writof'coIlvey,aneel', dated April'16,' 1886, from tne:owner of the patent tQ thecotnplamant, the former grants unt<> the latter" the exarid privilege to make, use, and sell the invention in andwotected by the letters patent United States above during the term thereof,' and of all reissues, renew'ale, and improvements thereof, 'tHroughout the United Statea and 'the terrl.'tories said! Clement Manufacturing, Compllnf''Yielding a,rid unto E. the royalties, and-upon' the: ,te'tn:ls condItIons, m acilrtam artIcle of agreement made between the parties, ',dated the ,16th day 'of April, 18'86, specified and :setfoi'th.l' The de::relldant demurs upon': tlle,gtound that the instrument is an exclusive 'Ucense,and ts neitberan 1l.Sllignment of the patent, Dor: a. grant; of the QWner's ¢xchisive right thereof, and that therefore the owner should, be

"rh6'f'ourteenth sectIon orthestatuteof 1836 authOrIZed the recovery 'of'damages for infringemfint of patents by-action on the C1l.S6;to be brought ; of the'persons interested, whether as patentees, assignees, . or oftheeiclusive' right within and'thtlJughout 'a specified , P!1l't olthe U nitedStates.Theterms whieh were' used ill ,this statute 'were defined as follows: "An,assigneels dnewho has had traIisfer:red to him, til Writing, the Whole intereSt of'the origina1llateiit. or any undivided part of such wholQinterest, iua8Vel}' portion'of'the;Unitedtitates; and no one" unless he hasbad;auchan "iDl. is A is ,wbQ bas bad

a'piittt 'plairitiff.

,!.

':

,

,.'

·

,',.

.