Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. tions of old parts, and as I have said, may be valid as such combinations, but the defendant had the same right to combine other or the same parts so long as it did not use the same combination shown in complainants' patents, which I find it does not. The bill is dismissed for want of equity. WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS COMPANY vs. ZALMON G. SIMMONS et al. CIRCUIT COURT-EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN-JUNE, 1881. IN EQUITY. 1. PATENTS-BEDSTEAD FRAMES-CONSTRUCTION OF RE-ISSUED PATENT No. 7,704.-In re-issued letters patent No. 7,704, granted to the complainant for an improvement in bedstead frames, the first claim must be construed to mean a combination of side bars, inclined double end bars, and elastic coiled-wire fabric attached only to the end bars, with the end bars of the frame elevated above the side bars, so that the fabric is suspended above the side bars from end to end of the frame, and the second claim must be held to mean the combination of the side bars, standards, inclined double end bars, and elastic fabric, arranged as and for the purposes specified. 2. INFRINGEMENT.-In defendants' bed bottom, the end bars are not inclined, and are not elevated above the side bars, but rest directly upon them. Held, in view of the state of the art at the time of the first patent, that the absence of inclined end bars in defendants' frame in connection with other differences, relieves the defendants from infringement. Coburn & Thacher, for complainant. Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. West & Bond, for defendants. DYER, J.-This is a suit in equity for an injunction, and to recover damages on account of the alleged infringement of re-issued letters-patent granted to the complainant, May 29, 1877, for an improvement in bedstead frames, of which J. M. Farnham was the inventor and original patentee. In the specifications of the re-issue the patentee describes the invention as follows: "My invention relates to a new frame which is provided with an elastic or flexible sheet or fabric for the support of the bedding. The frame is made of proper size to be inserted within any ordinary bedstead. My invention consists in the combination of the side bars and end bars, with the end bars elevated above the side bars in such a manner that the elastic fabric, stretched from end bar to end bar, can extend the entire width of the frame over the side bars, and an elastic fabric attached to the end bars only of the frame; and it also consists in the combination of the side bars and end bars of the frame connected together by standards or corner irons, B. By this arrangement the fabric is securely held * * *. It will be observed that the purpose of this method of attaching the fabric to the frame is to give to the fabric its greatest elasticity, by attaching it at its ends only, and at the same time making it as nearly the full size of the frame as could be well done, while it is substantially free from contact with the frame when used, excepting at its ends, where it is rigidly secured to the end bars." More detailed description of the device in the specifications is as follows: "To the ends of each side bar are secured, by means of bolts, a, a, upward projecting standards, B, B, made of metal or other suitable material. These bolts pass through short longitudinal slots in the standards, whereby the latter may be adjusted to stretch the cloth when desired. These standards are grooved, or have ribs on their inner sides by which the ends of the end bars, C, C, are held. The end bars connect the side bars and their standards with each other. Each end bar is made of two pieces or bars, b and c, both of equal and full length. Between them are held the ends of the fabric constituting the bed bottom, and clamped by means of screws or bolts, d,d. The end bars are held in inclined positions, as shown in figure 1, by the ribs or grooves on the standards, and are held in place by means of screws, e, which are fitted through the standards, or by other equivalent devices. By being in the inclined Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. position the end bars are arranged to hold the fabric secure, without coming in contact with its under side more than is necessary." The claims in the re-issued patent are: "(1) The combination of the side bars and end bars and elastic coiled wire fabric, D, attached only to the end bars, with the end bars of the frame elevated above the side bars, so that the fabric will be suspended above the side bars from end to end of the frame. (2) The combination in a removable bed bottom, or bedstead frame, of the side bars, A, standards or corner pieces, B, end bars, C, and the elastic fabric, D, combined and arranged substantially as and for the purposes specified. (3) The inclined double end bars, C, of a bedstead frame, arranged substantially as and for the purpose herein shown and described. (4) The standards, B, constructed as described, arranged longitudinally, adjustable on the side bars of a bedstead frame, to permit the inclined end bars to be set a suitable distance apart, as set forth." The first and second of these claims are new in the reissued patent. The third and fourth are the claims in the original patent, and are repeated in the re-issue. This reissued patent has been sustained as against all prior devices. in Whittlesey vs. Ames, 9 Bissell, 225, and I concur in the views expressed by Judge Blodgett in that case, touching the validity of the patent. The only question necessary to consider here is that of infringement. The defendants' device consists of the coiled wire fabric, side rails, double end rails, and certain kinds of corner irons which exhibit the element of adjustability. The end bars rest directly upon the side bars; that is, the inner edge of each end bar rests upon, and is in direct contact with, the side bars. One end bar is held in place by ordinary bolts which pass through it and the side bars. The other end bar is united with the side bars by what may be called angle irons and bolts. These angle irons are bolted to the under sides of the side bars and the end bar, and the face of the angle iron which thus rests upon and is fastened to the side bars, is longitudinally slotted, so that, in connection with screw and bolt, the iron is made adjustable. These irons do not hold the end bars elevated above the side bars; that is, they are not constructed and applied so as to Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. hold the end bar in a position where it is free from contact with the side bars. As before stated, the end bars rest directly upon the side bars. The outer face of the end bar is covered by a piece of metal which is fastened to it by screws and projects slightly over the side bar where the two bars are brought in contact. The only purpose of this piece of metal, so far as I can see, is to give to the outside corners greater finish. The end rails are double, as in the complainant's device; and, between the two pieces which together make the end rail, the ends of the wire fabric are clamped and held. Now, it is said by the counsel of complainant, in their brief, that "Farnham's invention consisted of the special way in which he attached this woven-wire fabric to the frame, whereby he produced new results that had never been attained in a bed bottom before; and that special way consisted in attaching the fabric to the end of the frame so that the coils extended from end to end of the frame of the kind shown, leaving the coils entirely free, thereby having the full elasticity and spring of the coiled wires that compose the fabric." And it is contended that the gist of the invention consists in an end attachment of the fabric, leaving it unattached to the side rails, so that the strain on the fabric is lengthwise of the coils of wire, thereby utilizing the elasticity and recoil of the coiled springs; that if this result is accomplished by resting the end bars directly on the side bars, and without elevating the end bars above the side bars so that they do not come in contact, and also without making the end bars inclined, the first claim of the complainant's patent is infringed. It seems to be the view of counsel that as the third claim is a claim on the special construction of the end bars alone, and as the fourth claim is a claim for the standards arranged as therein described, it was not the intention of the inventor to limit the construction of his first claim to the use of inclined Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. end bars, or of any particular form of standards or corner irons. In determining what was the invention patented to complainant, the original patent to Farnham, and the specifications, drawings, and claims of the re-issue, must all be taken into consideration. And although in the first and second claims of the re-issue the end bars are not described as inclined double end bars, and although in the second claim the end bars are not described as elevated above the side bars, I think the first claim must be construed to mean a combination of side bars, inclined double end bars, and elastic coiled-wire fabric attached only to the end bars, with the end bars of the frame elevated above the side bars, so that the fabric will be suspended above the side bars from end to end of the frame; and that the second claim must be held to mean the combination of the side bars, A, standards or corner pieces, B, inclined double end bars, C, and the elastic fabric, D, combined and arranged as and for the purposes specified. In view of the state of the art the patent must be limited to the construction described. This was the view taken by Judge Blodgett in Whittlesey vs. Ames, supra. He says: "The steamboat bunk-bottom, shown in the testimony of Robert E. Campbell, and the Dreusike and Dye patents, must be considered as operating to limit the claim of this patent to the special devices shown. The Campbell bunk-bottom was made of canvas, stretched from end rail to end rail, without outside fastenings; and although canvas may not come within the definition of an elastic sheet,' there can be no doubt that it is a flexible sheet.' The Dreusike bed was made of coiled-wire fabric, and while provision was made for the side fastenings, I think there can be no doubt he intended that the strain of supporting the weight to be borne by the bed was to come upon the end fastenings. In the light of this evidence I think that while these first two claims in the re 6 |