« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
I think that here Moran only exercised ordinary mechanical skill in adapting the elements of claim 3 to air locks, adding packing to close the hole about the rope or cable.
In Blake v. San Francisco, 113 U. S. 679, 5 Sup. Ct. 692, 28 L. Ed. 1070, the headnotes are:
"The second claim in the reissued patent of September 18, 1877, to Charles E. Blake, assignee of the administratrix of Thomas H. Bailey, deceased, for au improvement in relief valves for water cylinders, is for a combination of an automatic valve with a pinhole and pin to effect the desired object; and, as automatic valves had been previously used for that purpose in other combinations, it is not infringed by a combination of such a valve with a screw, sleeve, or cap to effect the same objects.
"The adaptation of an automatic valve, a device known and in use before the plaintiff's patent, to a steam fire engine, is not such invention as will sustain a patent.
"Where the public has acquired the right to use a machine or device for a particular purpose, it has the right to use it for all like purposes to which it can be applied, unless a new and different result is obtained by a new application of it."
I cannot, in view of the prior art, find invention in the combination decsribed in claim 3 of the Moran patent, and hence it is invalid and there can be no infringement thereof.
In Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S. 383, 21 Sup. Ct. 409, 45 L. Ed. 586, the court had under consideration a machine for attaching stays to the corner of boxes, and referred to the fact that no one had discovered that certain prior machines could be made available for the purpose of attaching strips to the corners of boxes, a new use; and then said: "This very fact is evidence that the man who discovered the possibility of their adaptation to this new use was gifted with the prescience of an inventor. ⭑ We agree with the courts below that it did involve invention to see that a machine of the Dennis and York type was adaptable to the work of the Beach device; and, second, to make such changes as were necessary to adapt that device to its new function."
But here we have no new use, simply a use in a new place, quite a different thing, and we have no new function performed by the old combination. The function performed is precisely the same. In Carstaedt v. U. S. Corset Co., 113 Blatchf. 119, Fed. Cas. No. 2,468, there was a change in the position of the needle bar, and its relation to the take up and to the edge of the cloth so that, said the court, "a new combination of devices has been, in fact, created, and the new combination has accomplished a new and useful result." Nothing of that kind has been done here. Moran hoisted the load to the open air without changing conveyances in the chamber of the lock, but not by the use of any of the elements in the combination. That was and is done by independent means. He also maintained the air pressure in the caisson in the old way, by closing the lower valves or doors after the load had passed into the chamber of the air lock. He maintained an equal pressure in caisson and air lock, while the load was passing from caisson to air lock and the lower doors were being closed, by means of the packing or stuffing box about the cable at the rope or cable opening in the upper two-part valve, and by this alone, and while he is entitled to the merit of being the first to conceive that, if made sufficiently tight about the opening for the rope, it would be convenient and useful to construct air
locks that way, still his right to a patent depended on the novelty of the means contrived to carry the idea into practical operation. He contrived no new or novel means; he made no substantial change in old devices; he used an old well-known packing or packing box (aside from stuffing box, T, conceded to be new and novel, but not used by defendants); and he made it serve its old purpose and accomplish its old result. This was not invention. Aron v. Manhattan Railway Company, 132 U. S. 84, 10 Sup. Ct. 24, 33 L. Ed. 272.
We come then to a consideration of the validity of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the Barr patent. These read as follows:
"(1) An air-lock for caissons, comprising upper and lower gates, pistons connected to said gates, and operating in cylinders and connections between said cylinders and the air confining cylinder of the caisson whereby said pistons and gates are operated by the air pressure in the caisson, substantially as set forth."
"(3) An air-lock, comprising a cylinder, a gate or gates formed in two parts or sections, and fluid pressure-controlled devices for simultaneously moving said parts or sections horizontally in opposite directions out of the passageway of said cylinder, substantially as set forth.
"(4) An air-lock, comprising a cylinder, and a gate formed in two parts or sections, and fluid pressure-controlled devices connected to each of said parts or sections for simultaneously moving the latter horizontally in opposite directions, substantially as set forth."
"(6) An air-lock, comprising a cylinder, a bed-plate or casting having a hole or opening, a gate formed in two parts or sections, cylinders supported by said plate or casting and pistons movable in said cylinders and having their rods connected to said parts or sections, substantially as set forth."
"(8) An air-lock, comprising a gate formed in two parts or sections, pistons having their rods connected to said parts or sections, cylinders for said pistons having two ports or passage-ways, pipes opening at their ends into said ports or passage-ways, and a valve connected to said pipes, substantially as set forth."
Aside from the mode of moving and the means for moving the gates, the two-part valves, or double doors of the Moran patent, this is substantially a duplication of that patent. It differs, also, from some features of the Moran patent, in that the valves, or doors, or gates, move horizontally, and are pressed, or may be, by the same mechanism, constantly against or towards each other, so that the packing about the rope or cable carrying the load is or may be constantly pressed against it, thus insuring against an escape of compressed air. But horizontallymoving gates are shown in figure 9 of the Moran patent. Hence this is not new even in air locks, and I find no mention of this constant pressure against the rope or cable in the patent. In short, Barr by suitable devices moves the gates, valves, or opens and closes them, by using the compressed air contained in the working chamber of the caisson or in the air lock, as the case may be, and which is constantly being pumped in or supplied to both.
Claim 3 of this Barr patent is clearly covered and anticipated by the Moran patent, which has the air lock with a cylinder, the gates (or doors or two part valves), moving horizontally in opposite directions, (Fig. 9 of Moran patent), out of the passageway of said cylinder, and the Moran patent expressly says:
"Fig. 9 shows a modification of the upper valve wherein the half valves, K, K', are borne on rollers on tracks below the valve seat, so arranged that 150 F.-23
the valve will fall upon the tracks when the air pressure is removed from the bucket space, M, when the half valves K. K', may be moved away by hand or appropriate instrument so as to leave a free passage through the opening in the air lock. When the cable is again in position the half valves are pushed together, [by hand or "appropriate instrument," of course] the air pressure turned on to the space, M [the chamber of the air lock], and the valve, K, K', raised against the valve seat by the air pressure, making a close joint.”
In short, Barr in making up claim 3 of his patent has taken the air lock and cylinder and valves of the Moran patent, and added the "appropriate instrument" for moving the gates or valves described by Moran, but not claimed, limiting it to "a fluid pressure-controlled device," very old in analogous arts, for doing the same thing in the No new function is performed, no new result obtained, and the elements operate in the same way to produce the same result. There is no patentable invention here in view of the prior art, even if we confine that art to the Moran patent. Moran would open and close the valves or gates by hand, or by steam, water, or compressed air, using, of course, some device controlled by fluid pressure. In view of the prior art as it existed in 1894, there was no novelty or patentable invention in moving gates of this description by water, steam, or compressed air. See O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 14 L. Ed. 601.
Claim 4 is in all material respects the same as claim 3, and falls with it. There is nothing new or novel that even winks at patentable invention in claims 6 and 8 of the Barr patent. The bed plate or castings are of the most ordinary construction, and they are placed where any person possessing common sense, having in view the purpose to be served, would have placed them and where they must be placed to do the work or serve the purpose desired. They support the valves or gates and the pipes and pistons and rods necessary for controlling and applying the compressed air thereto. There is nothing new or novel in the gates, or pistons, or rods, or cylinders, or ports, or pipes, or in their mode of operation, or in the result obtained or in their mode of application. These, old, are applied to an air lock, old, to move the gates, old, in the old way. It may be that they are here used for the first time to control the gates or valves of an air lock. But within the cases cited this is not invention. To do it did not even require "thought" in the patentable sense of mental conception. These things are not attached or applied in any new or novel way, or to accomplish any new result, and in the light of the prior art and expert evidence in the case, which has been carefully considered, there is no patentable invention disclosed. See Brown patent, No. 313,849, of March 17, 1885; Kennedy & Scott patent of June 21, 1887, No. 365,077; Joyner and Petesch patent of March 8, 1887, No. 358,977; Walsh patent of April 16, 1889, No. 401,394; Hawksworth patent for door opener, of March 25, 1890, No. 424,060; Paterson & Cumming patent of July 15, 1890, No. 432,070, for opening and closing water-tight bulk-head doors made of two parts and constructed to approach each other. This patent says:
"The mechanical devices by which the two parts of the door may be made to approach or recede from each other simultaneously may consist of screw gear, chain, or rope gear, or tooth gear, or any combination thereof. The gear
may be worked by manual, steam, or hydraulic power, or any combination thereof."
See, also Clark patent, May 30, 1893, No. 498,507, apparatus for operating furnace doors; Hartman patent of July 14, 1885, No. 321,966, and especially Stephen patent of August 19, 1890, No. 434,486, device for operating elevator well doors; this operating fluid and cylinders, and valves, and pipes, etc. Last, but not least, we have the patent to Judson of June 7, 1892, No. 476,386, "device for closing elevator gates," operated by compressed air with all the necessary machinery, such as cylinders, pipes, pistons, valves, etc., as in the Barr patent.
As to claim 1 of the Barr patent, while it requires that both the upper and lower gates shall be operated by air pressure which is not done in the 1901 locks, I can find no patentable invention disclosed in view of the prior art. It is simply putting an old device or machine into a new place, applied in the same way, substantially, to do its old work in the same way, and producing the same result.
There will be a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs.
PRESSED PRISM PLATE GLASS CO. v. CONTINUOUS GLASS PRESS CO. (Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. February 1, 1907.)
No. 14, November Term, 1904.
PATENTS-VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-APPARATUS AND PROCESS PATENTSPLATE PRISM GLASS.
The Ripley & Wadsworth patents, Nos. 661,025 and 661,024, for a process and apparatus, respectively, for making glass plates with prisms on one surface in two operations, which consist of first rolling the plate or sheet of glass and then pressing the same by means of a die while still plastic to produce the required prism pattern, were not anticipated and disclose invention. Both also held infringed. Patent No. 661,023 to the same patentees for the product of such process and apparatus as a new article of manufacture is void for anticipation; such article being already known and made, and that made by the patented process being, at most, only an improvement upon that of the prior art.
In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent Nos. 661,023, 661,024, and 661,025, relating to the art of making prism glass, granted October 30, 1900, to Daniel C. Ripley and Frank L. O. Wadsworth. On final hearing.
Thomas W. Bakewell and Marshall A. Christy, for complainants. Augustus B. Stoughton, for defendants.
ARCHBALD, District Judge. The patents in suit relate to the manufacture of plate prism glass; that is to say, glass in sheets or plates, having transverse parallel projections, or ribs, upon one side, in the form of prisms, a character of glass extensively used to illuminate the interior of buildings darkened by adjoining structures. There are three patents involved-one for the machine or apparatus by which the glass is made; another for the method or process; and 1 Specially assigned.
the third for the manufactured article. The prior state The prior state of the art, and the conditions to be overcome, as well as the means devised for doing so, are thus described by the inventors in the specifications:
"Heretofore in the manufacture of such prism-glass it has been the most approved practice to press the prism-surfaces in molds in the same manner in which glass articles are ordinarily pressed, a gathering of glass being placed in the mold and the plunger being brought down upon it, so as to displace it and to cause it to flow into all portions of the mold-cavity and to assume the contour and configuration thereof. It has been found that in this method of manufacture it is not practicable to make prism plates or pieces of large size, and they generally have been made of not more than three or four inches square. The reason of this is the difficulty of causing the glass to flow in the mold while cool enough to prevent burning of the sharp projecting portions of the formingsurface of the latter. Moreover, owing to the means of manufacture employed the prism-plate when pressed, even of such small size, lacks strength and is apt to be broken. It cannot be cut with a diamond, for when the surface is scored by the cutting-tool it will crack and break upon irregular lines. These practical difficulties have limited the utility of such glass-prism surfaces, for making of the pieces in small sizes increases the difficulty of assembling them, and the frame in which they are assembled is expensive to make and is more or less unsightly and to some extent excludes the light. Attempts to make prism projections by making the prism-pattern on the sheet-forming roll or on the table of the rolling-machine have been unsatisfactory, so far as we are aware, on account of the difficulty in forming a deep prism-pattern by such operation. We have discovered that all these difficulties heretofore experienced can be avoided and glass-prism surfaces made by our improved apparatus in single pieces of large area without impaired strength and capable of being cut with a diamond or other cutting device either parallel with or at an angle to the line of the prisms. Thus instead of forming the glass as heretofore by a single operation of pressing in a mold or rolling on a table we employ a mechanism comprising in combination two main parts, namely, a rolling-table on which we first roll out the glass into a flat mass and a vertically-moving upper die which may be of the dimensions required for the glass sheet and is shaped on the under side to produce the required prism-pattern. While the flat mass of glass is still plastic this die is brought down upon the surface of the glass, displacing the glass upwardly into the crevices of the pattern, with every portion of which the material is forced into contact until formed to prismatic ridges of glass having sharp angles, finished faces, and clean-cut outlines. In order to produce finished surfaces, the die must be brought against the glass with sufficient pressure to force the glass into contact with the mold over the entire surface thereof. In other words, the glass must be forced against the whole surface of the pattern under pressure."
Distinguishing the method from others which had gone before, it is further said that it
"Comprises two steps, namely, producing a substantially flat sheet of glass and then forming prisms on the surface of the sheet by pressure exerted in a direction transverse to the plane of the sheet upon the entire cross section of the portion to be ribbed. In this operation portions of the previously-rolled mass of glass while still plastic are simultaneously, over the entire area covered by the die, caught and confined between and in contact with the adjacent ribs by which the prisms are molded, and being thus segregated and confined are compelled to flow upward between the ribs. so as to form raised prismshaped ridges or apices, and this, systematically done over the surface of the sheet, constitutes, as we believe, one of the important features of novelty and utility. By this method two important results are secured. First, inherent molecular straining of the glass is prevented, because in the preliminary spreading the glass is so hot and plastic that it flows freely and in the second step of the operation there is a slight uniform vertical motion of the glass particles, but no substantial lateral spreading thereof, and, second, definitely shaped and polished surfaces are secured by bringing the polished surfaces of