Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs Simmons, issued patent may be sustained for the combination of the side rails, standards, end rails, and elastic coiled-wire fabric, yet it must be limited to the peculiar kind of side rails, standards, and end rails shown, or their manifest equivalents. Side rails, end rails, and elastic coiled-wire fabric were old, but the inclined end rail, made in two parts for the purpose of clamping the fabric and holding it suspended by means of the inclination between the points of attachment, seems, so far as the proof of these cases shows, to have been the invention of Farnham. So, too, his standards,' or corner pieces, B, are not shown to have been anticipated by any prior user or inventor. I think, therefore, that the owner of the Farnham patent had the right to claim by the re-issue the combination of the elastic coiled-wire fabric with these parts, whether they were new or old; but he had not the right to claim broadly, for Farnham, the sole right of suspending the fabric of which the bed bottom is made from end to end of the frame,' because Campbell, Dye, and Dreusike had suspended the flexible sheets of a bed bottom from end to end of the frame before Farnham made his frame." concur. In this construction of the complainant's patent I fully As the different elements of the Farnham invention, considered separately, were old, and as flexible material, if not the coiled-wire fabric, had been previously used in bed bottoms by suspending it from end to end of the frame, it is very clear that the complainant's re-issued patent must be closely limited to the construction which it describes. Considering the nature of the invention, and the language of the specifications and claims, with the accompanying drawings, it seems to me evident that, to establish infringement, in the language of Judge Blodgett, "the peculiar kind of side rails, standards, and end rails, or their manifest equivalents,” must be shown; and it might be added that the peculiar adjustment of the different parts, or the clear equivalent of such adjust Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. ment, should also be shown. Both Judge Shipman and Judge Blatchford, as I understand them, concur in the construction which Judge Blodgett has put upon this patent.' In Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Wire Web Bed Company, Judge Shipman says: "Judge Blodgett is evidently of opinion that the end bars of the first claim must be the 'inclined double end bars' of the third claim, and that the standard of the second claim must be adjustable on the side bars, so as to permit the enclosed end bars to be set a suitable distance apart, substantially as stated in the fourth claim;" and for the reason that in the case decided, the end bars were inclined, thereby preventing the under side of the fabric from resting on the end bars, Judge Shipman held the defendant's device in that case an infringement. In Woven Wire Mattress Company vs. Palmer, Judge Blatchford evidently regarded the inclination of the end rails and their elevation above the side rails by means of the corner standards as material; and, as I construe his opinion, he mainly rests his judgment upon those features of the infringing device before him in finding infringement. The bed bottom made by the defendants in the case at bar has been described. The exhibit in evidence shows a slight inclination of the end rails. But the proofs very satisfactorily establish the fact that such was not its original construction, and that in the bed bottoms which the defendants manufacture the end rails are made to rest squarely on the side rails and without any inclination of the former. The testimony that such was the construction originally of the exhibit in evidence is corroborated by the fact that the exhibited bed bottom was made in 1879, has since been moved from place to place and used as an exhibit in other litigation, and the signs of wear and tear are evident in the 'Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Wire Web Bed Co. 1 Federal Reporter, 222; Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Palmer, 5 Federal Reporter, 812. Woven Wire Mattress Co. vs. Simmons. fact that the different parts are considerably out of the lines of proper adjustment. This, I think, must be plain to the eye of any mechanic; and, upon the testimony and an inspection of the exhibit itself, I am of the opinion that the slight inclination of the end rails now visible is attributable to the strain of the fabric, the shrinkage of the wood, and generally to wear and tear. Since the end rails of the defendants' bed bottom are not placed above the side rails so as not to come in contact with them, but rest directly upon the side rails, it might be a close question whether there is in the defendants' device the elevation of the end rails above the side rails which is intended to be described in the complainant's patent. Certainly, the angle irons of the defendants' frame, in a material respect, do not serve the purpose of the complainant's standards, for the latter are adjusted outside the rails and hold the end rails above the side rails so that they do not touch, and so that with the inclination of the end rails the under side of the fabric cannot rest on the end rails. Whatever might be the view taken, if the only question was whether the defendants' frame shows the elevation of the end rails above the side rails exhibited in the complainant's drawings and model, or its equivalent, or if it was whether the angle irons in defendants' frame are the equivalent of complainant's standards, I am of the opinion that in view of the limitations to be necessarily placed on the complainant's patent because of the state of the art when Farnham made his invention, the absence of inclined end bars in the defendants' bed bottom, in connection with the other differences between it and the complainant's frame just spoken of relieves the defendants from the charge of infringement. In coming to this determination, I rely upon the proofs before me that the defendants have not constructed, and do not construct, their frames with inclined end rails; and it will be understood by the parties that a different conclusion entirely Edgarton vs. Furst & Bradley Mfg. Co. might result, if I were not satisfied from the proofs that the slight inclination now apparent in the exhibit in evidence is not attributable to original construction, but to the causes before stated. Decree for defendants. CHARLES EDGARTON et al. vs. THE FURST AND BRADLEY MANUFACTURING CO. et al., AND ANOTHER CASE. CIRCUIT COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JULY, 1881. IN EQUITY. 1. WHITCOMB PATENT FOR HORSE HAY-RAKE-EFFECT OF DISCLAIMER ON CLAIM IN SUBSEQUENT RE-ISSUE.-In the original Whitcomb patent for improvement in horse hay-rakes, the patentee inserted the following disclaimer in his specifications: "I do not claim the wire teeth F attached to the head E, as shown, for such device mounted on wheels is in quite common use." In the patent as re-issued, the disclaimer was omitted, and the following claim inserted: "2nd. The combination and relative arrangement of the hinged rakehead, with the supporting axle and carrying wheels * * * whereby the head is supported above the rear upper edge of the axle, as shown, and the lower ends of the teeth, when gathering the hay, occupy positions in rear of the tread of the wheels, and forward of a vertical plane on a line with the rear edge of the wheels." Held, that this claim in the re-issue was covered by the disclaimer in the original patent, and was therefore void. 2. INFRINGEMENT.-Held, further, that such claim was not infringed by a rake-head, suspended behind or in the rear of the axle by brackets. hung, so to speak, behind the axle, instead of being supported above it. Edgarton vs. Furst & Bradley Mfg. Co. 3. CLAIM VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY.-The fourth claim in the re-issued patent was for "The arrangement of the rake-head E, and foot-treadles HJ and G K, or either, in relation to each other and the axle B, substantially as, and for the purposes, set forth:" Held, that as a combination of parts, this claim was void for uncertainty. 4. CLAIM FOR TREADLES-PRIOR USE-VOID PATENT.-The court finds from the evidence that these treadles were used and sold with Whitcomb's consent, more than two years before the patent was applied for, and hence the patent as to them is void. 5. Brown vs. Whittemore, and Edgarton vs. Beck, commented upon. 6. COMITY BETWEEN COURTS.-Where the testimony in a case involving the validity of a patent, is the same as that in a case previously decided in another district, the same construction will be given to the patent; but if a different combination of facts is presented, the case will be decided on its own merits. Thomas H. Dodge, for complainants. West & Bond, for defendants. BLODGETT, J.-These two suits are for infringement of letters-patent issued on the 5th day of October, 1858, to George Whitcomb, for an improvement in horse hay rakes. The patent was re-issued June 16th, 1868, in two parts, as re-issues No. 2,994 and 2,995; and on the 5th of October, 1872, was extended for a further term of seven years. The first suit is brought by the owners of the original term, and the second by the owners of the extended term. The defenses set up are: First. The invalidity of the re-issued claims involved in this suit. Second. That the devices covered by the re-issued patent were in public use with the knowledge or consent of the patentee, for more than two years prior to his application for this patent; and also that they were publicly known and used by others for more than that time. Third. That the improvements in question are anticipated by the older art; and |