« AnteriorContinuar »
found on the opposite page. It will be observed that in the Corbin harrow a rocking bar, carrying scraper blades, is attached to a beam, E, which beam, in turn, is supported by the frame of the harrow, and that by means of the handle or crank, I, the rocking bar can be turned
by the driver, and the scraper blades made to travel along the concave surfaces of the disks, both inwardly, toward the axle, and thence outwardly. The scraper blades of this harrow are clearly shown in figure 2 of the drawings, which is a rear elevation of one gang of scrapers. We find in this harrow of Corbin rotating disks in combina
tion with scrapers carried by a movable bar or frame, which, when turned, moves the scrapers along the concave surface of the disks to and from the axle on which they turn on a line crosswise the surface, so as to remove the dirt therefrom.
When the Corbin and the Rose harrows are compared, it becomes manifest, we think, that if Rose made an improvement in disk harrows which discloses patentable novelty, and rises to the dignity of an invention, the claims of his patent cannot, in any event, be construed broadly, but must be limited strictly to those details of construction that are described in his specification, as otherwise his patent cannot be sustained as a valid grant. When the Rose patent was issued, a disk harrow was a well-known agricultural implement, then in common use. The patentee only aimed to provide a scraping attachment for such harrows, whereby the concave surfaces of the disks
J. S. CORBIN
could be cleaned readily by the driver while the harrow was in motion. He says in his specification:
"The invention relates especially to the devices for scraping the disks, and freeing them from the earth which they gather in use; the object being to render the scrapers more efficient and convenient of operation."
But Corbin had already suggested how this end could be accomplished, by suspending scraper blades from a rocking bar or hinged frame so that by turning the rocker or the frame the scrapers would travel across the concave surfaces of the disks. The differences between the Corbin and Rose harrows, so far as the scraping apparatus is concerned, are not striking. Rose adopted the substantial or principal elements of the Corbin device, namely, the movable frame or scraper carrier attached to the frame of the harrow, and the scraper
blades so depending therefrom as to come in contact with the concave surfaces of the disks. Rose may have changed the form of the scraper blades to some extent; and he appears to have constructed the hinged frame, D, which carries the scrapers, so as to permit the frame to have a lateral or endwise motion, which was possibly beneficial. He also provided a coiled spring, d3, to return the swinging frame to its place. In other respects he made no substantial improvement in the scraping attachment or device to which his patent relates. We are of opinion, therefore, that if his patent is upheld it must be limited to these details of construction.
In the Lindgren harrow, which is claimed to be an infringement, and which likewise adopts the substantial features of the Corbin device, the rocking arm has no lateral or endwise motion; at least, it has no such motion so far as the patent discloses, except such as it may eventually acquire by long continued use or wear; but each scraper is so set in its individual socket as to have a lateral motion, independent of all the other blades, and independent of the rocking beam. This feature, we think, differentiates the Lindgren harrow from the Rose harrow, and exempts it from the charge of infringement, for, when two inventors have each adopted the substantial features or elements of an earlier invention, making respectively but slight changes in or improvements upon the earlier device, each will be limited to his own specific form of device; and, if there are differences therein, neither device will be held to be an infringement of the other. In all such cases the general words of a claim, especially where the claim contains words of reference to a more particular description of the thing patented, which is contained in the specification, will be held to cover only the structure or the device so particularly described. McCormick v. Talcott, 20 How. 402, 405, 15 L. Ed. 930; Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554, 556, 557, 24 L. Ed. 1053; National Hollow Brake Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake Beam Co., 45 C. C. A. 544, 561, 106 Fed. 693, 710; Brill v. St. Louis Car Co., 33.C. C. A. 213, 216, 90 Fed. 666, 669.
Entertaining these views—that the appellant's harrow, made in accordance with the specification of the Lindgren patent, cannot, in any event, be regarded as an infringement of the Rose patent-it follows that the decree of the lower court must be reversed, and the bill of complaint dismissed. It is so ordered.
FARRELL et al. v. BOSTON & M. CONSOL. COPPER & SILVER MIN. CO.
(Circuit Court, D. Montana. January 31, 1903.)
1. Patents-INVENTION-PROCESS FOR REDUCTION OF COPPER.
The Manhes patent, No. 470,644, for the process of reducing commercial or pig copper from copper matte, and a converter for applying such process, which consists essentially in burning out the impurities in copper matte by means of radial jets of atmospheric air injected into the molten mass under pressure while it is in the converter, is void for lack of invention as to both claims, being the same process and essentially the same converter invented and patented by Bessemer, and used in the making of steel from pig iron, applied to a different but analogous subject, without any change in the manner of operation, or producing any result which is substantially distinct in its nature. In Equity. George A. Clarke and H. A. Seymour, for complainants. Forbis & Evans and Elmer P. Howe, for defendant.
KNOWLES, District Judge. This is an action brought by Farrell and Migeon to recover damages and an accounting and an injunction for the alleged infringement of a certain patent granted by the United States to one Pierre Manhes, the same being No. 470,644, and dated March 8, 1892. The patent has two claims, and they are as follows:
"I claim as my invention: (1) 'The process of reducing commercial or pig copper from copper matte, consisting in charging the matte in a molten state into a converter, forcing radial jets of air uniformly and continuously through the charge of molten matte, and causing the heat produced by the combustion of the sulphur and iron in the matte to separate the foreign substance from the metallic copper contained therein, allowing the metallic copper as it is separated from the matte to settle below the action of the air jets, and removing the chilled metallic copper as it forms around and obstructs the inner ends of the tuyères, and thereby insure the maintenance of a continuous and practically uniform distribution of air throughout the molten matte, and continuing the operation until the metallic copper contained in the charge has been separated therefrom, and then removing the copper from converter, substantially as set forth. (2) A converter for reducing commercial or pig copper from copper matte, having a wind-belt encircling the converter above its bottom, a series of tuyères extending through the lining of the converter and communicating at their outer ends with the wind-belt, and removable stoppers located in the outer walls of the wind-belt and in alignment with each one of said tuyères, whereby a drift bar may be inserted successively through said tuyères to remove obstructions from their inner ends, substantially as set forth."
The complainants claim that both the process above described and the converter used are new and novel; that said Pierre Manhes was the original, first, and sole inventor thereof, and that the same was not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof, and which was not in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application for letters patent of the United States.
The defendant in its answer denies that said Pierre Manhes was the original, first, and sole inventor of the alleged new and useful improve
ment in the process for reducing commercial or pig copper from copper matte, and of said alleged new and useful improvement in converters for copper ores, as set forth and described in said letters patent; also denies that said alleged improvements were not known or used by others in this country before the supposed invention thereof by said Manhes; also further denies that said alleged improvements were not patented or described in printed publications in this or any foreign country before the supposed invention and discovery thereof by the said Manhes, as alleged in the bill of complaint; also further denies that said alleged improvements were not in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to the application for said letters patent of the United States therefor; denies infringement; avers a failure of the patentee and the complainants to comply with the requirements of section 4900 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3388] in respect to the marking of their converters in the manner and form as therein prescribed; avers anticipation by prior patents; also avers public use for two years or more; expiration of the patent in suit by reason of the provisions of section 4887 of the Revised Statutes; also sets up the defense of laches. The general replication was filed to this answer, and the record is now before the court.
The first question presented is, was the process specified in Manhes's patent a new and useful one? As stated in the patent, the process claimed to be new and useful consists: (1) In charging matte in a molten state into a converter; (2) forcing radial jets of air uniformly and continuously through the charge of molten matte; (3) allowing copper, as it is separated from the matte, to settle below the action of the air jets; (4) removing the chilled metallic copper as it forms arcund and obstructs the inner ends of the tuyères; (5) continuing the operation until the metallic copper contained in the charge has been separated therefrom; (6) and then removing the copper from the converter, substantially as set forth.
In the United States patent No. 16,082, granted to Henry Bessemer, November 11, 1856, and entitled "Improvements in the Manufacture of Iron and Steel," the following statement is made:
"My invention consists in the decarbonization or partial decarbonization and refinement of the crude iron which is obtained in a fluid state from the blast furnaces in which the iron ore is usually smelted, or the decarbonization and refinement of crude pig iron or finery iron, by first smelting the pigs of crude iron or the plates of finery iron in any suitable furnace, so as to obtain fluid metal for the purpose of being treated by my improved means, and which consists, first, in running the fluid iron into a close or nearly close vessel or chamber, formed by preference of iron, and lined with fire bricks or other slow conductor of heat. When the chamber or vessel is about filled, I blow or force into and among the fluid metal numerous small jets of atmospheric air in a cold or in a previously heated state, or I use any other gaseous fluid or matter containing or capable of evolving sufficient oxygen to cause the combustion of the carbon contained in the iron, and thereby to keep up the required temperature during the process. The size or number of the jets or tuyère pipes by which the air or other gaseous matters are conducted into the molten metal should be proportioned to the quantity of fluid metal operated upon at a time, and may also vary with the condition or quality of the metal.
When using foundry iron of the quality known as No. 2, I run one ton of it into the converting vessel, in which it rises to a height of about one