HERENDEEN 11. HORGAN.
and others v.
(Otrcuit Oowrt, D. Maaaachiuaetta. September 9, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-HARROWS.
Letters patent No. 120,195, of October 24.1871, to E. W. Herendeen, for an improvement in harrows, construed, and held anticipated by letters patent No. 82,451, of September 22,1868, to J. J. Thomas, for improvement in harrows.
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. W. B. H. Dowse, for complainant. H. O. Bliss, for defendant.
CARPENTER, J. This is a bill to enJOIn the respondent from infringing letters patent No. 120,195, granted to E. W. Herendeen, October 24, 1871, for improvement in harrows. The respondent admits the infringement of the patent, but defends on the ground that invention is anticipated by that described in letters pa,tent No. $2,451, granted September 22, 1868, to J. J. Thomas, for iniprovement in harrows. I think the respondent is clearly right. In both patents the harrow-frame is composed of two or more rectangular structures hinged together in which the teeth are fastened,and in both the line of draught of the harrow is so arranged as to be parallel to neither of the sides of these rectangular structures. In the patent of the complainants the claim is for a harrow "with sn1all teeth inserted obliquely through the frame, substantially as and,for the,p'urposes set forth." The specification describes the teeth al?h.eingset "at an angle both longitudinally and laterally with the beam," so as to "lie inclined nearly or quite in the line of draught of the harrow," ,alld. so that "instead of pushing the lumps of soil to one si,de, they cut downward through them." I think it is evident from this description,as well as from the drawings, that the teeth areinsert.ed at an angle other than a right angle, and that they incline back",ard from the direction towards which the harrow is to be drawn. It is also evident, as it seems to me, that the teeth which are said t,o "lie in the line of draught" would be more accurately described as lying in the line of draught or in lines parallel thereto. I think this.is tIle ,construction of the patent. The claim in the Thomas patent is, for a harrow "having numerous inclined teeth pointing backward. an inclination as to cast off or slip over any stalks of weeds, or other refuse matter, substantially as described." In the spepification the teeth are described as "arranged at an inclined angle, pointing backward, so as to readily pass. over any rubbish and pass over the ground without tearing up young plants, but.pulverize the surface."
by Charles C. Linthicum; Esq., of the Chicago bar.
In both these devices, as I read the patents, the axis of each tooth lies in a vertical plane coincident with or parallel with the vertical plane which passes through the line of draught of the harrow; in both devices this vertical plane is not parallel with the vertical plane passing through either side of the rectangula.r plank or frame in which the tooth is inserted; and in both devices the axis lies in this vertical1>lane in such a way that (1) the angle between the axis and a horizontal line lying in the same plane is other than a right angle, and (2) the lesser angle between the axis and the horizontal line is on that side of the axis of the tooth which is opposite from the place towards which the harrow is intended to be drawn. This seems to be a full statement of the essential features of both devices, and it follows that there is no substantial difference between them. The -motion for preliminary injunction will therefore be denied and dismissed.
STEAM-GAUGE & LANTERN Co. and others v. MYERS MA.'NUF'G CO.l
(Oircuit Oourt, No 1.
July 26, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-KEROSENE LANTERNS.
Letters patent No. 104,318 and No. 151,703, to John H. Irwin, for kerosene lamps or lanterns, sustained; following Steam-gauge &': Lantern 00. v. Miller, 21 Fed. Rep. 514; and the defendant's lantern being essentially like the one involved in that case, held, that it infringed.
In Equity. Coburn cf; Thacher and E. S. Jenney, for complainants. Munday, Evarts cf; Adcock, for defendant. BLODGETT, J. This suit is brought to recover damages, and restrain the infringement of letters patent granted to John H. Irwin, June 14, 1870, No. 104,318, and letters patent granted to John H. Irwin, June 9, 1874, No. 151,703, both patents being for kerosene lamps or lanterns. These patents were fully considered by Judge SHIPMA.N in the case of Steam-gauge cf; Lantern Co. v. Miller, 21 Fed. Rep. 514, and the validity of the patents, in view of the state of the art, sustained. The defendant's lantern in this case is so essentiallv like the Miller infringing lantern in the case before Judge SHIPMAN that I can see no reason why, if the Miller lantern was an infringement, the lantern made by this defendant does not infringe these patents. Therefore, without discussing the merits of the patents, or the effect of infringement, further than to say that I am fully satisfied that the defendlantern does infringe these patents in its construction, mode of operation, and effect, I shall find the equities of this bill with, the complainant, and enter a decree for an accounting and injunction.
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.