the flat lower end of the plunger, and carry the larger platen upward. The smaller platen is formed on the upper end of the plunger, which plunger rests upon a slide that is fitted into a slot formed in the plunger. This slide rests upon a cam upon the fulcrum, by which the slide is forced upward, and with it the plunger. The cam is provided with a shoulder, which is adapted to be engaged by the inner end of a smaller lever, whose outer end is adapted to be depressed by a button, the button being carried by the large lever. When the button is depressed with the lever in the upper position of the latter, the nose of the lever engages the shoulder of the cam, so that when the hand lever is depressed the cam, as well as the cams on the inner end of the hand lever, will be operated; and both plungers will be forced upward. In recording elapsed time in minutes, an impression is first made by depressing the hand lever, which impression simply represents the semicircular series of graduations and the pointer in juxtaposition to the zero of such series of graduations. This is done at the beginning of the period of elapsed time, the card being held against a lateral guide and an end guide on the timometer. At the close of the period of elapsed time the card, again placed against the guides, is again printed upon by the die having the pointer and the annular series of graduations; and a record of elapsed time is produced. The timometer is especially adapted for telephone purposes, and is in the use of telephone companies to the extent of ten machines. As the machine was not intended to measure intervals of time longer than thirty minutes, the scale of graduations did not need to be longer than half a circle, the die rotating once an hour, and, since the arc representing the period of elapsed time was not to be longer than a semicircle, the second impression of the semicircle of graduations would not overlap the portion of the first impression, which would be read in determining the amount of elapsed time. Therefore the defendant did not need to make a construction in which the portion of the platen which printed the graduations the first time could be absent at the second impression. He accordingly used a solid platen. In the mechanism recording seconds the patentee put the annular series of graduations upon a stationary die, and caused the zero and pointer to revolve in unison and in juxtaposition with each other, and provided each of them with its separate platen. This enabled him, at the initial elapsed time imprint, to distinguish the initial from the final imprint by printing the pointer at only one of such imprints. At both the initial and the final imprints the defendant prints the zero, but prints the pointer at only one of the two imprints. In making an elapsed time record with the seconds. recording mechanism, the defendant first depresses his hand lever alone, without touching the button, which causes the annular series of graduations to be imprinted and also the smaller or zero die on the outer portion of the disc of his seconds mechanism, which die is the higher of the two dies on the disc. At the close of the period of elapsed time the defendant first depresses the button and then the hand lever, causing both levers to be depressed at the same. time, and raising both platens, the smaller platen starting from a lower level than the larger platen and rising to a higher level. This action causes a reprinting of the circle of graduations. Such reprinting is not objectionable, because it is superimposed upon the first imprint thereof, and also causes the imprint of the zero and of the portion of the pointer which is the inner and lower of the two dies on the rotating disc. In defendant's mechanism for recording minutes he obtains a record which consists of an annular graduated scale whose zero is at the beginning of the arc of elapsed time, and consists also of a pointer imprint which points to the graduation on such scale, representing the close of the elapsed time period. Such record can be read with facility although the defendant has no numerals which indicate the groups of graduations. The record of the seconds recording mechanism consists of an annular series of graduations and two imprints made adjacent to such series, which imprints are different from each other, so that it can be told which imprint was made first, and which imprint was made last. Thus it is shown with certainty whether the longer or the shorter arc is the measure of the period of elapsed time. Does the defendant's machine, the timometer, infringe the claims of the Hamilton patent? We have already stated the elements of the Hamilton claim in controversy. We now direct our attention to the defendant's mechanism for recording minutes. The rotatable printing die of the Hamilton patent may fairly be held to be found in the defendant's disc. In regard to the second element, the annular series of progressive numerals, the defendant contends that his semicircular series of graduations is not identical with, nor an equivalent for, the complete circle of progressive numerals found in the Hamilton patent. Defendant insists that his semicircular series of graduations is merely an addition to and improvement on, or amplification of, the old time stamp of the Emerson patent. His position is that the minute hand die of the timometer differs from that of the time stamp only in the addition of a half circle of graduations. But the evidence shows, and even the admissions of the defendant suggest, that the sole purpose of the semicircular series of graduations is to enable one to ascertain "the interval of elapsed time automatically, without calculation of any kind." We think the graduated scale of the timometer is clearly an equivalent of Hamilton's circle of progressive numerals. We come to this conclusion by giving the doctrine of equivalents its fair and reasonable scope. The thought of the inventor in the Hamilton patent was to provide by his progressive numerals for an easy reading of the result without calculation or subtraction. He is entitled to any fair equivalent for his "progressive numerals." We think such graduations as are employed by the defendant in the timometer are clearly within the rule of equivalents. By adopting the half circle of graduations instead of the circle of progressive numerals, defendant has clearly done nothing beyond "changing the form of complainant's combination, and not essentially varying the principle or mode of operation pervading the original invention." In Burdon Wire & Supply Co. v. Williams (C. C.) 128 Fed. 927, this court has discussed the subject of equivalents as bearing upon a ques tion quite similar to the question raised in the case at bar. In that case we discussed fully a long line of authorities, including Dowagiac Manufacturing Co. v. The Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 118 Fed. 136, 55 C. C. A. 86, and the Reece Case, 61 Fed. 958, 10 C. C. A. 194. This latter case is a controlling authority in this circuit on the subject of equivalents. Referring again to the different elements of the Hamilton patent and to the question whether or not these several elements are found in the timometer, we find that the third element, “the pointer type in juxtaposition with the zero numerals," is found in the pointer of defendant's minutes die. The fourth element of the Hamilton claim, "mechanism for rotating the die at a uniform velocity," is clearly found in the clockwork of the defendant's machine. We think the fifth element of the Hamilton claim, "the type printing mechanism whereby the numerals type and pointer type may be separately printed upon the ticket," is found in the defendant's larger platen and its operating mechanism. Having found infringement in the mechanism of the defendant for recording minutes, it is not necessary to protract the inquiry by a discussion in detail of the seconds recording mechanism. Examining now the two claims in controversy in the Abbott patent, and comparing the principles of the timometer with the elements of these claims, we find that the dies for printing the time of day in the first claim of the Abbott patent are found in the defendant's dies. "The single motor for driving both sets of dies" is found in the clockwork of the machine by which all the dies are driven. "The lever adapted by alternate movements to cause impressions to be made from both sets of dies" is found in the operating lever which projects from the front of the timometer. This lever is provided with a push button, by which, when it is pressed down, the two platens are connected together so as to move as one; or, when the button is not pressed down, the large platen may be raised by the lever without the small one. In reference to the last element of the first claim, we think an expert witness for the complainant-Mr. Smith-in his deposition stated with brevity and distinctness the infringement by the timometer. He says: "This operating lever by alternate movements causes impressions to be made from both sets of dies, because by one movement of the lever when the button is not depressed all the time of day dies and part of the elapsed time dies are printed, and at the next movement of the lever with the button depressed all the time of day and all of the elapsed time dies are printed, and thus 'both sets of dies' are printed by movements of the lever which operate upon two sets of dies one after the other; that is to say, by alternate movements." In the second claim of the Abbott patent the fourth element is the only added element which is not found in the first claim. That element is "means for actuating the die or dies not actuated by said lever." This element is found in the timometer in the button and its connecting parts, by which the small platen is connected with the large one, so that both may be operated together when the lever is depressed with the button also depressed. The defendant does not escape infringement by having his time of day device operated each time that the lever is depressed to operate the elapsed time device. Without commenting further upon the details of infringement, we are persuaded by the whole testimony that the defendant, in producing his device, was endeavoring to avoid infringement, and at the same time to imitate as closely as possible the devices found in the complainant's machine. We think he has not succeeded in his attempt to avoid infringement of the principles found in the calculagraph. The defense in behalf of the timometer is that it is merely an amplification of the time stamp of the Emerson patent; but in so amplifying the time stamp of that patent the defendant has imported into it the devices for recording elapsed time, which are the very things which, when so imported, bring the time stamp within the range of infringement of the patents in suit. We have in considerable detail given the elements of both machines in controversy. A study of those elements leads us to believe that the defendant has adopted the principles which distinguish the combinations of the Hamilton and Abbott patents from those which preceded them. We do not think it necessary to discuss all the various instances of infringement found in the offending machine. It is sufficient to say that the defendant has appropriated the distinguishing characteristics of both patents. An examination of the elements which we have referred to as found in the two machines convinces us that the case is brought within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120, 24 L. Ed. 934. In that case the court said: "Except where form is of the essence of the invention, it has but little weight in the decision of such an issue, the correct rule being that in determining the question of infringement the court or jury, as the case may be, are not to judge about similarities or differences by the names of things, but are to look at the machines or their several devices or elements in the light of what they do, or what office or function they perform, and how they perform it, and to find that one thing is substantially the same as another if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result, always bearing in mind that devices in a patented machine are different in the sense of the patent law when they perform different functions or in a different way, or produce a substantially different result." In the case before us, looking at both machines in the light of what they do and how they do it, we are brought to the conclusion that they perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result. Without deciding how far the calculagraph is a pioneer invention, we think it is entitled to a range of equivalents broad enough to bring the timometer clearly within the range of infringement. The answer raises the question as to defendant's personal liability for infringement. The bill of complaint describes the defendant as doing business as the Automatic Time Stamp Company. We do not, however, think that this description of the person changes the rights of the parties to the controversy. The substantial result of the bill is that defendant is sued personally, and that his corporation, the Automatic Time Stamp Company, is not sued. The record convinces us that at the time of the infringement the defendant was personally conducting the business, and that he intends to continue to conduct it. The law is well settled that a party cannot escape liability for his infringement by attempting to shield himself behind a corporation. An officer or director of a corporation cannot avoid liability for his infringement by setting up that his acts of infringement were performed in his capacity as a director or officer. In so deciding we are merely stating obvious and well-known principles of agency; and the law of agency is the basis of almost all corporation law. National Cash Register Co. v. Leland, 94 Fed. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372; Fauber v. Springfield DropForging Co. (C. C.) 98 Fed. 119; Alvin Manufacturing Co. v. Scharling (C. C.) 100 Fed. 87; Iowa Barb Wire Co. v. Southern Barbed Wire Co. (C. C.) 30 Fed. 123. We are satisfied that the claims of both patents in controversy are valid, and that they have been infringed by the defendant. Decree to be entered for complainant for an injunction, and for an accounting, with costs. RAYMOND v. KEYSTONE LANTERN CO. et al. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. August 27, 1904.) No. 28. 1. PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT-LANTERNS. The Wright patent, No. 476,506, for an improvement in lanterns having a wick-raising device, construed, and held not infringed. In Equity. On final hearing. Hector T. Fenton, Francis T. Chambers, and Otto R. Barnett, for complainant. Chas. B. Collier, for Keystone Lantern Co. HOLLAND, District Judge. This is a bill in equity to enjoin the infringement of letters patent No. 476,506, granted June 7, 1892, to Frederick K. Wright, for improvements in lanterns provided with means of raising the wick by rotating the oil pot. The bill also prays for an injunction and an accounting for past infringements. This patent was assigned to complainant as trustee, who holds the legal title sued on. The defense is: (1) Insufficiency of parties complainant; (2) noninfringement; (3) invalidity of the patent sued on for want of patentable novelty. The first and third matters of defense will not be considered, because, as I view the case, the important point is the question of infringement, allowing it to be a valid patent; and the evidence and exhibits convince me that the defendants do not infringe the complainant's invention. The invention of the patent in suit relates to a class of lanterns previously known, and is a new and useful improve |