Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Opinion of the Court.

new.

but to which the addition of the dash-pot contributed nothing

It is evident that plaintiff, in taking out his patent, supposed that he had first discovered the advantage of attaching a dash-pot to the class of governors known as shaft or shifting eccentric governors, and, when confronted with the Buckeye governors, sought to limit his patent to a dash-pot connected with a governor located in the fly-wheel, and to discover some special advantage to be gained by locating it there instead of in any other wheel revolving upon the shaft.

The introduction of these governors seems to have resulted in a large increase in plaintiff's business, and in the establishment of agencies in all the principal cities for selling engines containing this improvement. While this may have been occasioned by his introduction of the dash-pot, he has no right to a monopoly of this feature, since he had been anticipated in this particular by the Buckeye engines. The only novelty he has any possible right to claim is in the application of this style of governor, with the dash-pot, to an electric lighting engine, which seems to have been the thing needed to obviate the difficulty of a variable intensity of light and to secure the requisite steadiness; but this is not what is claimed in the patent. There can be no doubt that if the attachment of a dash-pot to a shaft governor had been a novelty at the time his patent was taken out, the Buckeye governors would have been an infringement. This being so, it is equally clear that, existing as they did before his patent, they are an anticipation.

The decree of the court below dismissing the bill is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

BRIGHAM v. COFFIN.

APP’EAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR

THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 251. Argued and submitted April 24, 1893. – Decided May 10, 1893.

Letters patent No. 283,057, issued August 14, 1883, to Frank E. Aldrich for

an improvement in rubber cloths or fabrics, are void for want of novelty.

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 283,057, issued August 14, 1883, to Frank E. Aldrich, for an improvement in rubber cloths or fabrics.

The patentee stated in his specification :

“My invention relates more especially to means for ornamenting the cloth or fabric; and it consists in a rubber cloth or fabric composed wholly or in part of rubber, having one or both of its surfaces provided with useful or ornamental designs or figures printed or stamped thereon with an ink or compound of a different color or shade from the body of the fabric by means of rollers, blocks, or in any other suitable manner, the ink or compound preferably containing rubber, caoutchouc, gutta-percha, or some analogous material, as hereinafter more fully set forth and claimed.

“In carrying out my invention I take an ordinary rubber cloth, preferably gossamer rubber cloth, or any fabric composed wholly or in part of rubber, and print or stamp its finished surface or surfaces with an ink or compound of a different color or shade from the body of the goods by means of engraved rollers, blocks, types, dies, or in any other suitable manner. I deem it preferable, however, to use rollers, one or more being employed, according to the number of colors to be applied, and the cloth passed in cuts through the printingmachine after the manner of printing calico and similar goods.

“The ink or compound employed in printing the figures or designs on the cloth or fabric is prepared as follows: Take one-half pound of rubber or caoutchouc, four quarts of naphtha,

Statement of the Case.

one-half pound of red lead, and one-eighth of an ounce of flowers of sulphur. Dissolve the gum in the naphtha, and then add and thoroughly mix the other ingredients therewith.

“I do not confine myself to the exact proportions given, as these may be varied considerably without materially changing the nature of the compound; and, instead of naphtha, some other solvent may be used for the rubber, if desired, although

, naphtha is deemed preferable; also, instead of the lead, litharge, pigments, shellac, ocher, lamp-black, or any other coloring matter may be employed, according to the shade or color it is desired to give the ink.

*

“As I propose to make the ink or printing compound described the subject matter of other letters patent, the same is not herein claimed when in and of itself considered.”

His claims were as follows:

“1. As an improved article of manufacture, a rubber cloth or fabric composed wholly or in part of rubber, having one or both of its surfaces printed or stamped with useful or ornamental designs or figures in an ink or printing compound of a different color or shade from the body of the cloth or fabric, substantially as set forth.”

The second claim was like the first, except that the ink or compound is described as being "composed in part of rubber, caoutchouc, gutta-percha, or some analogous substance, and a coloring material or materials, substantially as specified.”

The third claim was like the second, except that instead of the words “and a coloring material or materials” there is substituted “and containing sulphur or an ingredient for rendering the ink vulcanizable."

The fourth claim was like the first, except that the cloth or fabric is described as “ varnished.”

The fifth claim was also like the first, except that the ink or printing compound is described as “analogous to the coating of the cloth or body of the fabric, and of a different color or shade therefrom."

The sixth claim was also like the first, except that the ink or compound was described as “containing rubber and sulphur,

66

Opinion of the Court.

or an ingredient for vulcanizing the rubber when subjected to heat or the sun's rays."

The seventh claim was like the sixth, except that the words “the sun's rays" were omitted.

The answer denied that Aldrich was the inventor of any material or substantial part of the thing patented, and gave notice of prior patents; denied that the Aldrich patent described anything of value or importance; averred that it was practically worthless; denied that the invention was any advance upon the art of making rubber fabrics, or that such fabrics had ever been practically manufactured as described in the patent. The answer also denied infringement.

On a hearing upon pleadings and proofs in the court below the bill was dismissed, (37 Fed. Rep. 688,) and the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. Thomas William Clarke for appellant.

Mr. J. E. Maynadier, for appellees, submitted on his brief.

MR. JUSTICE Brown, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

a

The bill was dismissed by the court below upon the ground that there was nothing novel in an article of manufacture which consisted in printing ornamental figures upon a rubber fabric with a colored ink composed in part of rubber.

The patent in question covers as an article of manufacture:

1. A rubber cloth or fabric, which must be composed wholly or in part of rubber.

2. One or both of the surfaces of such fabric must be printed or stamped with designs in an ink or printing compound of a different color or shade from the body of the fabric.

In these particulars all the claims agree. The last six claims differ from the first only in describing the ink or compound, either as composed of rubber, caoutchouc, gutta-percha, or some analogous substance, or, in addition thereto, as contain

Opinion of the Court.

ing sulphur or other substance for rendering the ink vulcanizable, when subjected to heat or the sun's rays.

At the same time, while giving the composition of the ink, the patentee expressly declares that he does not claim the same in and of itself considered, because he proposed to make such ink or printing compound the subject of another patent. The case then reduces itself to the single question whether there is any novelty in printing or stamping a rubber cloth with designs in an ink of a different color or shade. The prior patents put in evidence show very clearly that there is no novelty in printing or stamping upon a rubber fabric designs of various patterns.

In the patent of December 14, 1875, to Dunbar and Lothrop for improvement in the manufacture of floor cloths, the invention consists “of a product composed of a base or foundation of cheap compound of rubber, overlaid or inlaid with a series of strips, figures, or characters of a thin and more expensive material, which is capable of receiving any desired color or tint, these strips or figures being, in the final stage of the vulcanizing process, embedded in the foundation, so that a uniformly even surface exists over the whole.” The claim of this patent is for “a floor cloth composed of a body of cheap material, with a series of parallel strips in colors or neutral tints composed of a finer quality of rubber compound, substantially as and for the purposes stated.”

In the later patent of March 30, 1880, to Brigham and others, the object of the invention was stated to be “to produce a light, thin, waterproof fabric for dress and similar goods ornamented with figures and colors to resemble ordinary dress and similar goods which are not of the waterproof class.” The invention consisted of a light, thin fabric, woven or otherwise formed, covered with a waterproofing of rubber composition, or a composition in all respects equivalent thereto, printed with ornamental colors and figures (embossed or plain) to resemble ordinary dress or similar goods.” The composition described in the patent “is spread upon the cloth in the manner well known in the art, and forms a basis for receiving the colors and holding them in sharp, clear lines without

[ocr errors]
« EdellinenJatka »