864

:FEDERAL REPORTER.

vol. 45.

pensedwitll; and when dispensed with it would be obvious, upon inspecting the lamp of the earlier patent, that the drip-cup could be also dispensed with, and would, if retained, be a wholly useless device. The improyement of the present patent relates wholly to the organization in a force-blast lamp of the two parts, the oil reservoir and the cavity below itz in such correspondence that the oil droppings from the reservoir will. fall into the cavity. It is effected by changing the form of the bottom of the reservoir of the lamp of the earlier patent. The only change necessary was to omit the opening for the central air-tube and omit the drip-cup; but the patentee, besides doing this, altered the shape ofthe bottom, so that it should be flat, or, preferably, slightly concave, -a change which did not affect the efficiency or the office of the drop a,ngle in the least. In view of the lamp of the earlier patent, it would seem to be clear that the patent in suit is void for want of invention. The claims of the patent are limited by the language of the specification, and alsO. in view of prior patent No. 142,103, toa cOI;llbination, ih which the oil reservoir has a oottom which is flat or slightly concave. The reservoir of the defendant's lamp does not have such a bottom. The drip-cup attachment cannot be considered as an equivalent for the fiat or convex reservoir bottom of the patent, not only because it has not a flat or convex bottom, but also because, . is expressly stated in the specification, ,the invllntion patented dispenslls with.a drip-cup. The bill is dismissed, because the patent is destitute of patentable novelty, and because the defendants do not infringe. .

KOEGEL SLITTER CO'. t1. EAGLE PAPER CO.

(OfIreuit Oourt, S. D. OMo, W. D. February 21,1891.)
P."lINTS FOR INVENTIONS-PAl'EB-BLITTER5-INFRINGEIIIENT.

.

. The first olaim of letters patent No. 8\12,262, issued November 6, 1888, to Osoar F. Greenleaf, for improvement in paper-slitting maohines, oonsisting of a revolvinll sbaft having a series of rotary outters adjustably mounted thereon, a oylindrical bar rigidly supported. above said shaft, series of hangers depending from said , 'bar, eaoh of saId hangers being oomposed of a strap adjustably seoured upon the bar and a spring-plate adjulltably seoured to the strap, and a series of rotary outters journaled upon said plates, is not infringed by a device having no spring-plate!!, and whose upper outters are journaled in rigid, fork-sbaped hangers, eaoh having a oylindrioal shank, by whioh it is .held in a olamping soo,ket in a two-part collar, , whioh olamped upon the rigid shaft, from whioh the l/opper outters depend.

"In Equity. Bill tOl'estrain in*ingement of patent· .Arthur Stem, for complainant. . ", ;Parkimon &: ParkimQ'fl,. for defendant.
,

J. The patent in suitis;No. 392,262, dated November 6,1888, and was granted to OscaI: E.Greenleaf, assignee of William C. Edwards, for improvement in paper-slitting machines. It was subsequently trans.SA(JE,

KOEGELSrJrrTER CO.

,PAPER CO.

365

ferred to and is now owned by the complainant. It contains six claims, of which· the first (the only one alleged ,to be infringed) is as follows: "In a machine for slitting paper, a revolving shaft baving a series of· rotarycutters adjustably mounted thereon, a cylindrical bar rigidly supported above said shaft, a series of hangers depending from said bar, each of said hangers. being composed of an upper member consisting of a strap adjustably secured upon the bar, and a lower member consisting of 'a spring-plate adjustably secured to said strap. and a Beriesof rotary cutters journaled upon the lower members of said hangerg, combined and operating substantially as set forth." The patentee states that his invention relates to"Machines in which a series of rotary cutters is combined with a series of lower rotary cntters, and with devices for gujding a web of paper besaid cutters, for the purpose of cutting or slitting said web into strips of any.desired width." He states, further, that the objects of the invention are"T,o provide novel means fO,r supporting .and adjusting the cutters of the upper series in such manner that said cutters can be and easily thrown out of operative engagement with the cutters of the lower series, and can be adjusted relatively thereto, to compensatefor wear of tbeircutting p,dges, with great aecuracy, and to provide meanll' whereby the distance between the sel'and lower cutters can be reduced, for the purpolle of the paper into very narrow strips." . ,. The answer denies (1) infringement;' (2) that Edwards was the originalandfirst inventor of the patented' machine; (3) avers that it had been in· public use,and 011 sale in this country for more than two years prior to thEl filing of the application for letters patentjand (4) sets up various letters patent as anticipating the invention. The' patentee of the patent in suit was examined as an expert on bebalfofthecomplainant. He testifies ,that the invention referred to in the first claim consists in the spring-plate made adjustable by the mode of attachment to the projecting stem of the strap, and serving to press the, upper cutter against the lower c:me. He further testifies that by substituting this plate for the coiled spring, and by using the narrow strap, the' slitters can be set more closely together, and that the stem from the strap, "having one edge thicker than the other," (or, as it is -expressed in the specification of the patent, "the inner face ofthe stem beiug inclined slightly towards its front a shear-cutting motion is produced,which insures a. clean even cut along both edges of the strips of paper. This testimony is in full accord.with the statementscontaibed in the specification of the patent. The defendant's machine differs from the complainant's in several respects. It is manufactured under and in accordance with a patent granted 26th of February, 1889, to Albert Bess. It has no spring-plate. The upper cutters or slitters are journaled in rigid fork-shaped housings or hangers, each having a cylindrical shank, by which it is firmly held in a corresponding clamping socket in a two-part collar, which is itself clamped upon a rigid shaft, from which the upper cutters depend. It is stated in the specification that when the slitters are sharp and newly

,QDERAL >Rlll'QRTER J

voL 45.

(started :the axes oftlie upper oneS would be parallel with the axes of the lower ones; and in this condition they would work until so worn as to ·materiailly affect tl1e',clearance at the cutting points. Then the lower clamp-screw in the two-part collarmll.ybe loosened, the housing turned a trifle; and the clamp t'esecure<.l. This throws the upper slitter out of "para).lemnn with the and in this mannE1r the of engaging slitter$may .be adjusted for angular engagement to commaY.be made pensate for the loss of clearance. 'l,'his angular as often as required. A coil spring encircling the axle of the upper slitter serves to press that slitter toward the lower slitter. ". '. again to the specification of complainant's patent, we find that ·the, sets forth as <?ne of the advantages of his imprqvement that ·the,.upper"cutterswill"bA heldagainst.thelower ones by the elasticity of the spring-plates, and the degree of pressure can be accurately regulated by lateral a<:ljustment of the straps. He says. that he is thus "enabled to avoid the use of. spiral springs to. press the cutters together, which · f¥l()n lose and to be renewed.'" The spi.ral The or,hnqgmgs of the defendant's machme 23,1888, (No. 245,are substantially shown itt patent 405,) which was put in evidence by defendant. In the. patentee's ex·thatthe angle at which he sets the slitters in his ma(;hine to obtain the shear-cutting motion is stationary or constant, Rnd readyJm- the work at aUtimesj but that ill the Koegel and Bess slitters, ," which :am similar in .0000struction," this angle has to be set by the .ma,,,hine and in cinstances the setting is wrong, to the injury ,,,f the and the prevention ofthto cutting of the paper-. From the l\bove it appears that the defendant's slitter does not con·1ainthe:elements upon which the patentee., both inhis'specification and In,his testimony, resta,hisclaim to invention, but conforms literally to :.the <:onstructionwhichthepatent represents,and the patentee testifies, it wa1Jthe object,o{ his .invention to exclude. And now,in the face of this showihg, the doctrine of equivalents'is invoked. That a machine which follows the identical construction condemned and rejected by the patent .is to as an<infringemeilt ·simplyhecause it haSt in COlnmon ,with the .parented machines, some elements that belonged; to older rnachines,on which the patentee twas trying to. improve, isa propl'lsition so faltogetherUlitenable, and, in ctmflict ,with· the elementary of patent law t that it would be only a waste of time to discllss it· .The, bill will be dismisseu t ;with costs.
i\

, ;

.,. ",

I

.'

"1

'I

"

t' J

,

L.,

,

,;11

I

i

THE E.,Jo.CAIN.

. r

867

.THE E.· L·. CAIN.

KRESSEL ". THE

IRON..WORXS

v.

E. L.

CAIN., CoNROY

SAME. . BENKE

et at. v.

et ,at·v. SAME.

SAME.. .,STEEDMAN

v.

SAME.

(DiBtr£ct OO'Wrt, D. South ea'l'oUna.

March 5, 1891.)

1. '. Co,vl'l'I-STATE AND FEDEB.x.-CONetJ'RRBNTJUBISDIOTtOll'-CoMITY. 4t1Jg attached on process out of a state court, and by that court placed in the 'of ita receiver, towhoin It is delivered by the aherifl, ill iuthe custodyof that conrt,·li.!l4 Qannot be taken by\, the attachcreditors suing in the district federal court, though the receiver makes no resistance to such takh:ig,' nor demands the from the marilhiU.
   

:u.,ted

to

,'rb,e faet that the'title of defenda):!t in lIottachment to the tug is disputed does not aflecttlle state cOUrt"s' jur:tsdiction, nor the fact that the proceeding in the state court isonatta6hmeDt,wh1lethat in is in rem.' , The hen" set up in the federal court befpg maritime neull, W'!ilch cannot be sdJndt. lcateB 'iIi' thie lltate court, the causes wiU be retained until the state court orderS the sllo18:of the ,tug orreleases,itfrom oustody- i)1BJ;ly, other j
· ,.',' .'

I. ., . ·

REH;"".A,.TTACHMBNT. .

. ':.1....

. .·

8.Ii4MBc1'M,4ol'ITIJ,@I..IJIlN\l-ENII'Pl,tCEMENT. '. '....

'l

·tothe . ·. I., P·.

BradWy

Libe;tfor . .: " I ' ,I libelanta. -Rarnt!-'j'd" (or claim/l-nta,,; ," .
·

"

.

. 8moNTON,

istneoessary. ·,on 3d November, 18,90,scomplaint w,as filed in,Ul,e coprt of comtnotli ;pleas for Charleston county by Q. :Mauvel agaipst. the Norlh American Dredging & Improvement Compan;y. The complaint allegedthat..the defendant was an .insolvent corporation;.that.a rec.eiver had been appointed.for its property in the state, of ,Ne,w J erse,y, :u,nde,r whose laws it was' oreated;and that aIr ancillaryre<:eiver had, pointed in Ne.wt ;York. The prayer.and,object a recelv-er be a.ppointed in the state of SotlthCarolil1Q, to ,take of its .propei'tyhere,. which property, it is stated , co!:ulists, ll-mWlgot)ler of the. dredge Frolic and thesteaIJ.l-tug .E.L. Cajn. QntheeRme day attachmentsi were issued in the"saII'le court by Frank K1-'6s!,!el, Jr., M. A. Connor" Oohtoy&' Co., and th& Charleston Iron-Work!'!, and, Per,. haps 'others, iagainstitheNorth Amel.'ican Dredging ,Company, and in -each warrant. theshe.:dff was instructed to attach all .the property of the defendant in county" especially the. dredge Frolic, and all other· property of whatsoev:er kind, in the hands, possession,o;r'control of William H. Fox. Fox was the manager of this company in charge of. the. dredge and the tug. Cain.: ,To each of these warrants the sheriff hadmllde ,his return of the personal property atta.ched.by him, anl'l taken iptobis tody by \Til'tuethereofi" ,which return includes the dredge FroHcand steam-tug Cain, the latterivalued at $5,000.. As soon as plaintiff formed of theseattachmEmts,.he filed a suppLement.a!j ingthtl o..riginal and stating

J .. In order to undel'Btlj,ndthese caee$d\!)tatementoffacts

,1

"