ing lining for the same. An incandescent lamp, briefly described, consists of an illuminating filament bent into the form of a loop and inclosed in a glass bulb. When inserted in the socket, electrical connection is made, resulting in an illumination of the lamp. Fine wires leading into the socket extend through and convey the electric current to the filament. The insulating lining prevents contact of the strands of wires with the metal parts of the socket. The illumination appears when the key, which controls the electric flow, is turned, and is extinguished when the electric contact is severed by breaking the circuit. The lamp may be manufactured and sold separately. As will appear presently, the prior art shows a form of metal sockets for electric lamps having an insulating lining formed in two cylindrical end portions with an intermediate sloping shoulder. The patentee, when his invention was conceived, was familiar with the state of the art, as may well be supposed from the admission found in the specification. The inventor stated in his application:

"My invention relates to that class of electrical apparatus in which a metallic shell surrounds other metallic parts serving to carry or regulate an electric current, and will be described with particular reference to sockets for incandescent lamps, though it is useful in various other relations. In such apparatus it is highly desirable that the metallic shell should be lined with an insulating sheet for obvious reasons. It has hitherto been the custom to stamp out from sheets of fiber or other similar material curved pieces which would, when assembled, form an approximately cylindrical lining of the proper shape; but this arrangement was objectionable, both because of the cost of manufacturing and assembling such pieces and because of the imperfection of the lining thus formed. My invention contemplates forming a single lining of the proper shape, made in one piece, and entirely suitable for the purpose for which it is intended."

It will be noted in this connection that the insulating lining in question is adapted to fit the interior of metallic shells having end portions of different diameters joined by an intermediate shoulder. The shape or configuration of the shells was not new when the patent was granted. Insulating linings of various kinds and of various materials, as applied to incandescent lamp sockets, were also old. Vulcanized fiber in sheet or tubular form adapted to molding was familiar. Moreover, it is contended that it was common in the art to supply a one-piece insulating lining to a metallic shell of an incandescent lamp to prevent the strands of wire which enter the socket and connect the metallic parts from twisting or abraiding the circuit by contact with the outer shell. To support this contention, the patents of Taylor, No. 316,847 and No. 616,746, Bergman, No. 443,562 and No. 484,580, Dempster, No. 443,746, and Klein No. 471,645, are cited to anticipate the patent in suit. The Taylor patents treat of shaping or molding vulcanized fiber by compression. The Klein patent describes a socket for electric lamps having a metallic shell of different diameters. The lining of insulating material prevents contact with the circuit connections, and is located in the outer or smaller portion of the shell. It does not extend through the socket, and obviously is without a shoulder by which the upper and lower parts are joined. The Bergman and Dempster patents show shells of one diameter, but the lining of hard rubber, though extending through the shell, lacks

the shoulder intermediate its length. According to the testimony of complainant's expert witness, the language of the specification setting forth the known "custom to stamp out from sheets of fiber or other similar material curved pieces, which would, when assembled, form an approximately cylindrical lining of the proper shape," merely contemplates the utilization of fiber for an insulating lining of a single piece instead of two pieces. The patent of Perkins, No. 626,927, dated June 13, 1899, describes an insulating lining of vulcanized fiber formed in two parts to closely fit sockets shaped like those of the patent in suit. Although the Perkins patent is of later date than the Painter patent, the insulating lining is of the precise shape as the two-piece lining which Painter, in his specification, admits to be old. Therefore, irrespective of the process by which the lining is molded, the single question presented is whether it was invention to make in one piece a seamless insulating lining for a lamp socket which previously had been made in one or more pieces of the same material. The function of the one-piece and that of the prior two-piece lining is precisely the same. The process by which the vulcanized tubing is utilized to make a one-piece lining of different diameters to closely fit the interior of the lamp socket is practically identical with that of shaping or forming metals of different diameters by forcing the same into a female die. The process by which the insulating lining is made, as already said, is not here directly involved. Nevertheless, the question of novelty of the device may be considered in connection with the process of manufacture for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the art. For example, the operations by which cartridge shells are formed and the desired conformation of the insulating lining of the patent in suit is obtained are apparently similar. This point, however, need not be decided, and no opinion thereon is expressed, as the construction of the process feature of the patent is not intended. The theory of complainant is that the invention for an insulating seamless lining of different diameters, and having a shoulder intermediate its length, has great merit, and hence is entitled to the protection of the patent laws. As heretofore indicated, the only difference found between the patent under consideration and the prior art is the seamless feature of the lining. This feature, according to complainant, is of the essence of the invention. Defendant lays particular stress upon the fact that the previous patents and the customary method of manufacturing insulating linings enabled the construction of a seamless lining like that described in the patent in suit by the skilled in the art without experiment or engineering skill. This contention is thought to possess merit. Giving consideration to the state of the art as known and understood by the inventor when the device was conceived, it is clear that Painter made no such alteration as resulted in a different application. Therefore his invention is not patentable. The production of a seamless insulating lining having a shoulder intermediate its length required nothing more than the knowledge of the trained engineer or workman. Complainant's device consists merely in making in one piece that which was formerly made in two parts, and performs no new function. The principle announced in Howard v. Detroit Stove

Works, 150 U. S. 164, 14 Sup. Ct. 68, 37 L. Ed. 1039, would seem to apply to the case at bar. There the patent related to an improvement in stoves, and the court substantially held that, because the bolting or riveting together of sections of a stove was well known at the time of the alleged invention, the claims were void for want of patentability. The court said:

"It involves no invention to cast in one piece an article which had formerly been cast in two pieces and put together, nor to make the shape of the grate correspond with that of the fire pot."

In Standard Caster Wheel Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 162, 51 C. C. A. 109, the patent described a method of making in one piece that which has formerly been made in two. It was there stated as a general rule that the mere making in one piece of a device formerly made in two parts, which were mechanically attached, is not invention. It was further stated that there were exceptions to the general rule, which, however, depended upon the special facts indicating the presence of inventive faculty in a degree beyond mere mechanical knowledge. The patent involved in the Standard Caster Wheel Company Case was for an improved socket for receiving the shank of a furniture caster. The socket was provided with a spring of the same material made integral with one side of the socket. No invention was found to exist, because the function of the spring made integral with the caster socket was precisely the same as that resulting from its application in the prior art. In reaching its conclusion the court distinguished the case of Krementz v. S. Cottle Co., 148 U. S. 556, 13 Sup. Ct. 719, 37 L. Ed. 558, on the ground that the collar button involved there was an improvement of form, strength, and lightness, and, being made of gold, resulted in an important cheapening in cost. True, there is evidence in the record tending to show that the Painter device, because of its cheapness, speedily superseded the two-piece insulating lining of the prior art, but, as was said in Consolidated Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Holtzer, 67 Fed. 907, 15 C. C. A. 63: "Such considerations are applied with caution to a very limited class of cases otherwise doubtful." McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 12 Sup. Ct. 76, 35 L. Ed. 800; Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Co., 149 U. S. 216, 13 Sup. Ct. 850, 37 L. Ed. 707; Olin v. Timken, 155 U. S. 141, 15 Sup. Ct. 49, 39 L. Ed. 100. The principle of these cases applies here. In Consolidated Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Holtzer, the patent was for a negative battery element in which the electrode and the cover were made in one, with a hole in the cover. In the prior art the electrode and cover were separate. The decision of the court was to the effect that there was no patentable invention in making solid castings in lieu of construction of attached parts, and that the burden rested upon the inventor of such an improvement to show special reasons in support of his claim. Complainant's expert witness Wirt testified that the linings of the prior art were not satisfactory, in that the fine strands of wires would pass through the seams, and thus come in contact with the shell. Though this defect has been removed by the patent in suit, it is nevertheless thought to have been merely such a modification of the two-piece lining as comes

within the sphere of the skilled artisan. This conclusion also finds support in the evidence showing that it was not new to compress or mold vulcanized fiber either in sheet or in the form of tubing.

For the foregoing reasons a decree may be entered dismissing the complaint, with costs.

SPEAR v. KEYSTONE LANTERN CO. et al.

(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. August 27, 1904.)

No. 20.

1. PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT LANTERNS.

The Spear patent, No. 413,464, for an improvement in lanterns, the object of which is to make a stronger union between the oil pot and the guard frame, was not anticipated, shows invention, and the invention was not abandoned by the taking out of patent No. 399,944, by the same inventor. Claims 1 and 2 also held infringed.

2. SAME-VALIDITY-PRIOR PATENT FOR ELEMENT OF COMBINATION.

A prior patent for a device does not defeat a patent for a combination of which such device forms one of the elements.

In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 413,464 for a lantern, granted to Furman D. Spear October 22, 1899. On final hearing.

Arthur M. Pierce, James H. Raymond, Otto R. Barnett, and Hector T. Fenton, for complainant.

Chas. B. Collier, for Keystone Lantern Co.
Frederick G. Dussoulas, for John T. Casey.

HOLLAND, District Judge. The complainant, to whom patent No. 413,464 was granted on October 22, 1899, for a new and useful improvement in lanterns, brings this suit, and alleges that claims 1 and 2 of said patent have been infringed by the defendants. The defense is (1) Noninfringement; (2) lack of invention in the subject-matter of the patent; (3) that the patent has been anticipated; (4) that the patent was abandoned, or his right to a patent lost, by reason of prior issue of a patent to the complainant No. 399,944.

The patent No. 413,464 is for an improvement in lanterns, and the object to be attained, as set forth in the description, "is to provide a simple, cheap, durable, and easily applicable means of uniting the oil pot and chimney or globe with the guard frame, the union being such as to increase the strength and rigidity of the structure at or in the region of the union, so that it will effectually withstand any damaging force or strain to which it is likely to be subjected." To secure this advantage in lanterns, the complainant claims to have invented a new and useful method of uniting the body hoop with the frame of the lantern in such a way that the hoop is not only securely held in place against any possibility of disarrangement, but so that the form of joint adds to the strength and stiffness of the structure in the region of the frame always most liable to damage. Heretofore

2. See Patents, vol. 38, Cent. Dig. § 8.

lanterns were made by joining the body hoop to the frame of the lantern, either by hooking the upright guards to a top flange, which was secured to the top of the body hoop, or the upright guards were extended down and joined to the body hoop by various devices; but in no other prior construction of a lantern do I find the employment of a body hoop frame ring to which the upright guards are attached, and which entirely encircles the body hoop, as in the complainant's lantern. In other words, the complainant is the first to have used a body hoop frame ring which embraces the body hoop at its center, and rigidly secured to the body hoop frame ring by being buckled over the inside edge of the body hoop frame ring. This gives the entire structure strength, stiffness, and rigidity at the point where it is necessary in order that the oil pot and the light may be secure against damage. The body of the lantern is composed of a series of upright wide and thin steel bars arranged radially to the axial line of the lantern and united together and held in proper relative position with regard to each other and to the other members. of the lantern body by horizontal spacing rings called "guard rings. These guard rings are also wide and thin annular steel rings united to the upright wide and thin bars by notching and interlocking them together. The lower frame ring is what is called in the patent in suit "the horizontal body hoop frame ring," which is notched and interlocked with the upright guards. The body hoop consists of a vertically set sheet-metal cylinder, and is secured in the horizontal body hoop frame ring at a point intermediate of its ends by being buckled under and over the inner margin of the body hoop frame ring, and afterwards dipped or tinned; the patentee claiming that the form of joint adds to the strength and stiffness of the structure in the region. of the frame always most liable to damage.

The first and second claims in the specification are as follows:

"(1) In a lantern, the combination, with the horizontal frame ring, B3, secured to the upright guards, substantially as explained (that is to say, by internotching them, and thus interlocking them together), of a body hoop secured upon said frame ring, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.

"(2) In a lantern, the combination, with the flat metal horizontal frame ring notched upon and secured to the upright guards, of the body hoop bent or buckled upon said flat metal ring, substantially as shown and described.”

The defendants' lantern, which complainant alleges infringes his patent, is correctly described by Edward Wilhelm, the expert called by complainant, and is as follows:

"Defendants' lantern is of the same general type as that of the Spear patent in suit, and contains a lantern frame which is composed of upright guard members, horizontal guard rings, and a body hoop, the guard rings being rigidly secured to the upright guard members, and body hoop being rigidly secured to that horizontal guard ring, which connects the inwardly turned portions of the upright guard members, the body hoop frame ring; and the lower ends of the upright guard members are notched and interlocked so as to connect these parts rigidly, and the body hoop frame ring is seated in an annular depression or recess formed in the outer side of the body hoop (which corresponds to the buckling in the complainant's lantern), so that the latter is rigidly secured to this ring. The lantern then appears to be dipped for securing these members of the guard frame together and giving them a finish. The upright guard members are made of flat metal which is the preferred form specified in the Spear patent, and the body hoop frame ring, to which the lower