n;PERAL REPORTER,

v:oL 48.

MILLNER '11. VOSS

et al.

W£rouU Court, W. D. Virglnta. June, 1889.)'
PATBNTIP'OR INVBNTIONS-CoMBINATION-ANTICIPATION.,

.

patent No. 9,108,issued to Jackson C. Millner tor a tobacco curer, consisting of a combination of, two fire-places of different sizes on each·side of a chimney, .leading heaters, WhiC;ll traverse the buUdin,lJ to a common fiue, connecting with a central heater, which serves as a return fiue, connected with the chimney, are void as· being a mere combination of old parts; which have IOJ1.g bl;len used in the same manner.

·.. .

.

In Equity. f;luit by Jackson C.' Millner against H. F ·. oss & Co. for infriQgemeJlt of a patent. Bill dismis.sed. T, S, Flournoy and M. M.. Tredway, for plaintiff. R. W. Peatross, for defendants.
BOND,:. J. This is a bill in .equity, filed by the complainant, charging the defendants with ofletters patent No.'9,108, granted him for improvement in tobacco-curing furnaces. The prayeroftbe bill is for an injunction and general relief. The defendants, by.theiranswer, deny, among other things, the novelty and utility of the plaintiff's socaUed invention, and also. that they have infringed. The plaintiff, in the specification describing his invention, alleges that the ,object of it is to effect theJnore thorough and uniform curing of tobacco, and that the novelty of 'it consists in the construction and arrangement of its parts. The furnace described in the specifications consists of two fire-places of different sizes on each side of a chimney, out of each of whiah,issues:a fiue, which traverses the fioor of the house in which thetQbacco is hung to be cured, and then enteni a fiue which. runs at right anglest6 it; which fiue is commoJl to all thefiues issuing from the the center of this common fiue is another fiue, whioh also traverseS the fioorofthe <:uringhouse, reversel> back,tothechirnney,serving to convey the smoke to the chimney, while it also serves as a heater. ,Each of these fiues, with the exception of the common fiue, has a damper or valve to regulate the heat, and 'on the fiues from the. furnaces:lire adjusted pans to hold wat.at and .furnish moisture during the procesS,; .' The claim of the patent is, in a tobacco-curing apparatus, a gang of furnaces; each, having heating surfaces, and all connecting with a common flue combined with a return fiue, which also serves as a heater, and connects the common flue with an escape pipe or chimney, as herein specified. (1) The combination in a tobacco curer of two sets of furnaces of different capacities, leading through suitable heaters to a common fiue, conneCting with. a central heater, which serves as a return fiue, connected with a chimney located at the furnace end of the drier, as specified, and for the purposes set forth. (2) In a tobacco curer, the combination of the furnace, A, A, B, return heater, B, and chimdirect heaters, B, B, B, B, ney, C, located at the furnace end of the curer, are the valves or cutoffs, a, at a, at substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

y

MILLNER V. VOSS.

833

Each of the parts of this combination is old. The patentee do not s claim that he is the inventor ofa or cut-off, nor qhim:Qey, and, if he did, the evidence sufficiently disproves the facl. His patent is for a combination of old devices, and there is nothing new in it but the combination, if that be new. The evidence shows that long before the date of complainant's patent tobacco growers had used in their drying houses flues for the curing of the tobacco by heat. These flues were connected with a furnace near each corl1erof the front of the tobacco house, united at the rear of the house in a common flue, and had a return flue to the chimney, placed .between the furnaces at the center of that side of the tobacco house; and the patent of Green, offered in evidence, which is an English patent for drying peat, issued March 5. 1849, has two furnaces so situated, and the flues going from them to a common flue, and returning thence by a return flue to the chimney. placed on the Sllme side of the house. But the specification of the complainant requires on each side of the chimney two furnaces or more, alike in all respects except in size, and this is claimed as part of his patent. But surely there can be no invention in this. Where one stove is found to be unequal to the heating of a room, to put another beside it, even though smaUer,requires no invention; and if at the, time of'the issue of plaiiltiff's patent there was in use for curing tobacco, or anything else, sirigle furnaces, with flues entering a common flue, with a return flue to the chimney, it is not a patentable combination to put two furnaces side by side. to accomplish the same purpose, even though one be smaller than the other. The plaintiff's combihation produces 110 new result;' It works iQ.no different manner. It is a,mere colorable variation from the old method of building furnaces, required no eXercise Of the inventive faculty. anll is not' patentable. . The complainant has offered in evidence the larl(e amount of sheetiron piping sold by the defendants to be used in tobacco curers, to show the utility oHhis invention; but there is no evidence. to show that this piping was.used with this particular patented combination. Indeed. the evidence shows that the complainl'lut. dOes not use the com bina,tion of the large and small furnace on each side of the chimney in such furnaces as he erects; and in the argument at bar claims that a single furnace on eacnside of the chimney, with the common flue and return flue, is within the scope of his patent. This is not so, and, if it were true. in law his patent is void. having been anticipated by Green, as above stated, and by the old curers shown. to be us", by tobacco planters long before his patent was issued. The injunction is refused, and the bill v.48F.no.10-58

834'

FEDERAL REPORTER,

vol. 48.

It

HAMMOND ·BUCKLE

Co.

17. HATHAWAY,

01.

(OircuU

D. OonnecticUt. January 16,1892.)

1.

Letters patent No,S01;884, Issued July 15, 1884, to Theodore E. King and Joseph , Hammond, Jr., are for 'an Improvement, in shoe-buckles and similar articles, consisting in a tongue-f!la.,e.qomposed of a single piece of metal doubled upon itself, and fbrll:ed at its rear and nextthe catch-plate,' The tongue swung In this bifurcationt its pivot being located underneath the Indentations in the under-fola of thlltQnguepartlallyelllbJ;!IoOOd tb.e ends ofthe pivot-pin, which was.beld between the two' The ooject of ttiis construction was to cause the tongue-plate to extend reliMt'ard of the tongu8,Jformlllg there a bearing surface for the: catch.plate. The the tongue, pivoted directly to , llrl\tolallD. was: "In combination, the the tongue-plate, and the tOngue extending rearward of the' pivot, and in contact with the cateh-plate,!\\lheD:the. parts'are engaged... Beld,.tbat the patent was in,tri,ngedby a '\lowpolled of two. riveted .t ogethe r, the, lower,belnl{ pro.. , ViWldWlth prOJections; fb Which the pivots of the tongue tur'll, Slid WhlCh fit lOtO open lriga. in the upper. plate :.when t.he two Ii.etogether j and the Up.1 er, which is a . .. p spring-plate, being blfurqated, alld eXtelldlng on. both sides of the. tongue rearwaist, to aflord a bearing surface for the catch-plate, though the lower plate has no ,exteDaion. . , The fact that the upper plate is a spring-plate, and similar in construction to the aprtng-plate of an older patent, (No. 19l,758, also issued to King and Hammond,) does not,prevent since"as combined with the under plate, it forms a toAgueplate suostantially like tbat of the double plate of the paten. 48 Fed. B,ep. 805, afIlr.med.
, ':':

!'4TUTB !'OB

B. S.urlll..,

On rehearing.

SHIPMAN, J. This is a petition by the defendilOts for a rehearing of so muoh of the above-entitled cause 8S relates to the infringement of the first olaimof letterspateiltNo. 301;884 by 'U1emanufacture of" Ex!hibit Weld Buckle D." The tongue-plate of the patented buckle consists of. the double l('8,vesof 'a single piece of metal folded upon itself. ,The under fold partially embraces' the ends of the pivot-pin, which it hdldsbetween itself and the upper fold. When the tongue passes through the forksGf the tongue plate, they aTe sprung apart, which causes a slightlooking action. 'l'his latter peCUliarity is the subject of the fourth claim of the patent, and does Dot exist in any of the defendants' buckles. Buckle D is composed of two plates superimposed upon and closely fastened to each other. The tongue does not crowd apart the forked extensionofa. tongue-plate,but the upper plate isn spring-plate, which is "pressed away from" the.lowe'l' plate' .by a projection upon the middle part of the tongue. As was the· former opinion, the upper plate "is bifurcated, and 'M(tendson both sides of the tongue rearward, to afford a bearing surface for the catch-plate, but the lower plate has no such extension beyond the tongue-pivot." The foundation of the defendants' argument against infringement is that the tongue-plate of buckle D is the lower plate, and that the upper plate is simply a springplate, and is the spring-plate of No. 191,758. If the tongue-plate is the lower plate alone, there is no infringement, because it does not extend rearwardly, so as to afford a support for the catch-plate, and the tongue is pivoted at a point slightly above its surface. While the tongue-plate