Fig.3

G

Fig. 4.

"Specification forming part of Letters-patent No. 117,442, dated July 25, 1871.

"To all whom it may concern :

"Be it known that I, Anton Meyer, of Stuttgart, in the empire of Germany, have invented a new and useful improvement in watchman's time detectors; and I do hereby declare the following to be a full, clear, and exact description thereof, which will enable those skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing forming part of this specification, in which drawing

"Figure 1 represents a face view of this invention. Fig. 2 is a similar view of the same, the dial-plate being partially broken away to expose the marking-dies. Fig. 3 is a transverse central section of the same. Fig. 4 is a detached section of the cam-shaped bridge. "Similar letters indicate corresponding parts.

"This invention consists in the arrangement of one or more stationary marking-dies in the face-plate of a watch or clock in combi

nation with a cam-shaped bridge extending over the marking-die or dies, and with one or more keys, the bit or bits of which correspond in position to the marking die or dies in such a manner that, by affixing a disk of paper or other suitable material to the movable dialplate of the watch or clock, and causing said disk to revolve between the stationary marking die or dies and the cam-shaped bridge, the key or keys, on being introduced into the watch or clock-case and turned in the proper direction under the cam-shaped bridge, will depress the paper or other material on the marking-die corresponding to the position of its bit, and the exact time when the watchman has visited a certain room or station on his beat will be recorded on the disk of paper or other material.

"In the drawing, A designates the case of a watch or clock, in which is firmly secured a stationary face-plate, a, the central part of which is cut out to make room for a disk, b, which is secured to an arbor, c. This arbor connects by suitable gear with the clockmovement, and it revolves once in twelve hours. The surface of the disk b is flush with the surface of the stationary face-plate a, and it is provided with two or more points, d, so that a dial, e, of paper or other suitable material can be readily attached to it, and that, when such dial is placed on the disk, it will be compelled to follow the motion of the same. From the face-plate a project one or more stationary dies, f, the faces of which have engraved or otherwise produced in them figures, letters, or other suitable characters, and which, when more than one such die is used, are set in a radial direction, as shown in Fig. 2 of the drawing. These dies are situated beneath a bridge, g, which is firmly secured to the case a, and which is perforated with a hole, h, to receive the key K. The under surface of the bridge is cam-shaped, as shown in Fig. 4, and the upper surface of the key is rounded, so that, when the key is inserted into the key-bole and turned round under the bridge, the projection i on said key will be depressed toward the die, and the dial, e, which is carried through between the dies and the bridge, will receive an impression to correspond to the face of the die. The position of the projection i on the key, of course, must correspond to the position of the die, and if more than one die is used several keys have to be prepared, one for each die. These keys are intended to be secured in the various rooms or stations composing the beat of the watchman, the watchman carrying the clock or watch, the case of which is locked by a key in the possession of the superintendent or proprietor of the place. On reaching a certain station the watchman inserts the key in his clock, and, by turning it, a mark is produced

on the dial e indicating the station. On the dial is also marked a time-table, j, and the bridge g may serve as the index pointing on the divisions of the time-table. As the dial is carried around by the clock-movement, the time when a mark is produced on the dial by one of the keys can be read off from the time-table, and the movements of the watchman on his beat can be controlled. If the number of stations in the beat exceeds the number of the markingdies in the clock, keys can be prepared with two or more projections, and with six marking dies a large number of stations can be controlled. If desired, the bridge g may be made yielding, so that its action on the key will depend not only on its cam-shaped face, but also on the action of a spring having a tendency to force said bridge in toward the marking die or dies.

"I am aware that a watchman's time detector has been heretofore made in which spring marking-points are used to indicate the different rooms or stations in the beat, such as described in the patent of J. E. Buerk, June 6, 1865. For these spring marking-points I have substituted stationary dies representing figures or letters, whereby the stations of a beat are readily recognized; and, furthermore, the stationary dies are easier made than the spring markingpoints, they are less liable to get out of order, and the impressions produced by them cannot be forged without having exact counterfeits of the dies.

"I disclaim every thing shown and described in the patent of J. E. Buerk, above mentioned.

is

"What I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters-patent,

"The stationary marking die or dies, situated beneath a camshaped bridge, in combination with a suitable key or keys and with a dial passing through between the marking die or dies and the bridge, substantially as herein shown and described."

The court passed a decree in favor of the complainant, and granted him a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making, manufacturing, or causing to be manufactured, using, or vending to others to be used, watchman's time detectors embracing, containing, or using the invention described in and secured by the said letters-patent No. 48,048.

Imhaeuser thereupon appealed to this court.

Mr. Arthur v. Briesen for the appellant.

The complainant's patent is void. Mere duplication of devices is not patentable.

Invention, in the sense of the patent law, is the finding out, contriving, devising, or creating by an operation of the intellect something new and useful which did not exist before. Ransom v. Mayor, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252. A contrivance which does not require the exercise of inventive power is not patentable. The Corn-Planter Patent, 23 Wall. 181. Enlargement of the organization of a machine does not afford any ground, in the sense of the patent law, for a patent. Phillips v. Page, 24 How. 164. The mere change of location of an old device is not patentable, if the result is the same as before. Marsh v. Dodge et al., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 562. The mere transfer of a mode of constructing wooden slides and metallic slides is not invention. Carter v. Messinger, 11 Blatchf. 34. There is nothing new in the multiplication of parts. Wilbur v. Beecher, 2 id. 132.

The defendant's device does not infringe. Form, when of the essence of the invention, is necessarily material; and if it be inseparable from the successful operation of the machine, the attainment of the same object by a machine different in form is not an infringement. Werner v. King, 96 U. S. 218. Every man has the right to make an improvement in a machine and evade a previous patent, provided he does not invade the rights of the patentee. Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 id. 516; Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 351.

Where the defendant in constructing his machine omits entirely one of the ingredients of the plaintiff's combination without substituting any other, he does not infringe; and if he substitutes another in the place of the one omitted, which is new or which performs a substantially different function, or, if old, was not known at the date of plaintiff's invention, as a proper substitute for the omitted ingredient, then he does not infringe. Gould v. Resse, 15 Wall. 187; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288, 297, Carver v. Hyde, 16 Pet. 513; Brooks v. Fiske, 15 How. 212.

Mr. J. Van Santvoord, contra.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Equivalents may be claimed by a patentee of an invention consisting of a combination of old elements or ingredients, as well as of any other valid patented improvement, provided the

arrangement of the parts composing the invention is new, and will produce a new and useful result.

Such a patentee may doubtless invoke the doctrine of equivalents as against an infringer of the patent: but the term equivalent," as applied to such an invention, is special in its signification, and somewhat different from what is meant when the term is applied to an invention consisting of a new device or an entirely new machine.

Pressure in a machine may be produced by a spring or by a weight; and where that is so, the one is a mechanical equivalent of the other. Cases arise also where a rod and an endless chain will produce the same effect in a machine; and where that is so, the constructor in operating under the patent may substitute the one for the other, and still claim the protection which the patent confers. Exactly the same function in certain cases may be accomplished by a lever or by a screw; and where that is so, the substitution of the one for the other cannot be regarded as invention.

Patentees of an invention consisting merely of a combination of old ingredients are entitled to equivalents, by which is meant that the patent in respect to each of the respective ingredients comprising the invention covers every other ingredient which, in the same arrangement of the parts, will perform the same function, if it was well known as a proper substitute for the one described in the specification at the date of the patent. Hence it follows that a party who merely substitutes another old ingredient for one of the ingredients of the patented combination is an infringer if the substitute performs the same function as the ingredient for which it is so substituted, and it appears that it was well known at the date of the patent that it was adaptable to that use. Gill v. Wells, 22 Wall. 1, 28.

Due process was issued against the present respondent and two others, to wit, Theodore Hahn and Charles Keinath, all of whom were duly served, but the respondent last named never filed an answer, and submitted to a decree pro confesso. Both of the other respondents appeared and jointly answered, setting up two principal defences: 1. That the complainant was not the original and first inventor of the improvement. 2. They deny in their answer that they have in any manner infringed