tween the blades partly or wholly filled. Formerly this was done by running in solder or lead or some other metal in a molten state. It is obvious that when this was done the metal run in became fixed, as did the blades, and that, when it was desired to knit a new pattern, it was necessary to use a new burr wheel. On the other hand, it is obvious that if the blades were removable or detachable from the wheel proper, and certain of the blades had a projection or cam on the side thereof, at the proper place, either made integral with the blade, or made separately and attached by means of a rivet, and of such size or shape that such projection or cam would fill the space between the blades when in place, in the same way the metal run in would do, that different patterns could be knit with the same burr-wheel, and without changing it, by merely changing the blades, or the location or number of blades, having such projections or lugs. There were two old, well-known wheels-the Kavanaugh and the Allardice. These were well-known equivalents. Comparing the Kinsey patent in suit with the Kavanaugh, it is obvious from the evidence that the Kinsey patent shows the blocks. applied to the blades of a Kavanaugh wheel. It is evident that the blade with the closing block or cam, so called, either soldered or riveted thereto, is the equivalent of the blade with the block or cam cast or wrought integral therewith, so far as the questions here are concerned. It would not be patentable invention to make such block or cam as a part of the blade, in place of soldering or riveting it thereto. The Allardice and Kavanaugh wheels, each with the blocks riveted to the blades, are equivalents. In the case against Wright's Health Underwear Company (C. C.) 115 Fed. 527, and 119 Fed. 921, 56 C. C. A. 451, it is evident from the opinions that the prior patent to one Swits Conde, No. 240,008, dated April 12, 1881, failed to be held an anticipation of the Kinsey patent in question here because it did not plainly show the closing blocks attached to the blades. The patent itself was in evidence, but not the Conde model burr of 1881, on file in the Patent Office at Washington years before the Kinsey patent was applied for, showing the blocks or cams attached to, and forming a part of, the blades. Nor was the present defense made, that the device covered by the Kinsey patent was in public use in the Conde Mill at Oswego, N. Y., and at Amsterdam, N. Y., for years before that patent was applied for or granted. On the evidence, which is substantially uncontradicted and unquestioned, it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and in fact beyond any question, that the alleged invention of the Kinsey patent was on public exhibition and in prior use, in connection with the Conde burr on exhibition in the Patent Office at Washington, for years before the Kinsey patent was applied for or granted. The memory of witnesses alone is not relied on. They come supported by notes made at the time, which evidently do not falsify. The evidence shows that Kinsey, the patentee, was in and about the mill where this device, patented by him subsequently, was in use, long before he applied for his patent. He was acquainted with the Kavanaugh and Allardice wheels, and the application there of the device in question. He borrowed the invention of others, so far as there was invention, which had been abandoned to the public. This court has no doubt that had these defenses, supported by the evidence now adduced, been before the court in the Wright's Health Underwear Company Case, the decision there would have been the other way. This court is not at all inclined to differ from the decision of the court in that case on the defenses made and the evidence produced. In this case the court finds no evidence of a concocted story or "put-up" defense. The defendant is entitled to a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs. AMERICAN WRITING MACH. CO. v. WAGNER TYPEWRITER CO. WAGNER TYPEWRITER CO. v. WYCKOFF, SEAMANS & BENEDICT. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. March 10, 1905.) 1. PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT-STOP MECHANISM FOR TYPEWRITING MACHINES. The Schulte patent, No. 450,592, for an adjustable mechanism for making column stops on a typewriting machine, claim 9, covers only the particular mechanism disclosed. As so construed, held not infringed. 2. SAME. The Gathright patents, No. 436,619, claims 4 and 5, No. 452,268, claims 6 and 8, each covering mechanism for making column stops on a typewriting machine, construed, and held not infringed. In Equity. Suits for infringement of letters patent No. 450,592, granted to John H. Schulte April 14, 1891, and letters patent Nos. 436,619 and 452,268, granted respectively September 22, 1890, and May 12, 1891, to Josiah B. Gathright, all relating to column stop mechanism for typewriting machines. On final hearing. Henry D. Donnelly and Edmund Wetmore, for Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict and American Writing Machine Company. Arthur v. Briesen, for Wagner Typewriter Company. WHEELER, District Judge. In the use of typewriters the writing of short lines and other tabulating work was done by stopping. the carriage at the proper place for beginning it by hand. July 22, 1886, John H. Schulte made application for a patent for mechanism to stop the carriage at desired places by moving the feed dog out of the toothed feed racks into a third rack, having teeth at long intervals to engage the dog and stop the carriage at the desired. place; and January 15, 1889, Josiah B. Gathright made application for a patent for such mechanism, consisting of a bar hung in the machine in line with the feed racks, carrying adjustable stops to engage with a bar on the carriage as the feed racks should be lifted away from the dog. A patent was granted on this application. numbered 436,619, and dated September 22, 1890, among the claims of which are: "(4) The combination of stop-rod freely hung to the machine, a stop-lug thereon, and a supplemental spacing-key hung in the machine and adapted to move the said stop-lug into the path of a portion of the feed-carriage, and connection between the stop-rod and rack-bar, substantially as shown and described. "(5) In a typewriter, the combination of the usual letter-keys and one or more spacing-keys having mechanism in common for permitting the carriage to move a definite space at each stroke, and a supplemental spacing or skipping key fitted to permit the carriage to move any desired number of said spaces, according to adjustment, said key provided with independent mechanism for releasing the carriage from the detent, and mechanism for simultaneously interposing an adjustable stop, substantially as shown and described.” October 17, 1890, Gathright made another application for a patent for such mechanism by which the dog was lowered away from the feed racks, and a stop on the carriage was made to engage with adjustable stops on the nearly parallel push rod. April 14, 1891, a patent was granted on Schulte's application, numbered 450,592, containing among other claims: *(9) In a typewriting machine, the combination, with the carriage, of an adjustable column-stop, a dog to engage the same, and a finger-piece or key to actuate said dog, substantially as and for the purpose set forth." And May 12, 1891, patent No. 452,268 was granted on Gathright's second application, which contained, among other claims: "(6) The combination, in a typewriting machine having a carriage feed-rack, of a detent bung to engage the said rack, a rock-shaft journaled in bearings parallel with the feed-rack to be rocked in a direction transverse thereto, and having one arm communicating with the said detent to disengage it from the rack, and another arm or block to be rocked into the path of a fixture of the carriage, and a skipping-key connected with the rock-shaft, substantially as described." "(8) The combination of a typewriting machine feed-rack, a rock-shaft nearly parallel with the rack wholly independent of the ordinary feed rock-shaft, a lug upon one and stop-blocks adjustably secured upon the other, a detent for the rack, the rock-shaft having one arm to disengage the rack and detent, and another arm connected with a skipping-key, substantially as described." The first of these suits is brought against alleged infringement of this claim of the Schulte patent by the use of the tabulating mechanism of the Underwood machine, whereby the carriage is raised away from the feed mechanism, and stopped by the engagement of arms on the carriage with projections on the frame. The second is brought against alleged infringements of these claims of the two Gathright patents, whereby the carriage is raised away from the feed mechanism, and projecting arms are moved into engagement with adjustable stops on a notched bar hung in the machine. It seems quite obvious, without going more into details of the contrivances, that claim 9 of the Schulte patent cannot be held valid to cover such different mechanism as that of the Underwood machine unless the combination of any tabulating mechanism with the known parts of a typewriting machine would be so patentable as to cover all other forms; but such a combination with another machine was not new. The Schulte device operates in its particular way to accomplish the stopping of the carriage of the typewriting machine at certain places; the Underwood mechanism accomplishes a similar result in a different way. Under such cir cumstances, the inventions are not the same, and a patent for one would not cover both. In the latter of these cases it is urged that, as the inventions and patents of Gathright are the first to place the tabulating mechanism. away from the feed dog, his patents should cover all such devices that include that feature of which the defendant's structure is one. This one common feature does not, however, make all combinations containing it the same. The patents will not cover the plan of tabulating in that way, but only the inventor's contrivances for carrying it out, and the defendant's means are so different from that inventor's that the use of them does not appear to be any infringement of either of the claims of his patents here involved. According to these views, the bill in each case must be dismissed. Bills dismissed. CORTELYOU et al. v. CHARLES ENEU JOHNSON & CO. 1. PATENTS-CONDITIONAL SALE OF PATENTED MACHINE-VALIDITY OF RESTRICTION ON USE. It is competent for the owner of a patent for a rotary neostyle, used for stencil duplication, to sell such machines under a license restriction that they shall be used only with paper and ink made by the licensor, it being necessary to the successful operation of the machine that such supplies shall be of a special kind and quality, and any use of the machine with other supplies will constitute an infringement of the patent. 2. SAME-NOTICE OF CONDITION. In such case a written contract of license embodying such restrictions is not necessary, but purchasers and users are bound by a notice thereof placed conspicuously on the machine itself. 3. SAME CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. A defendant who, with knowledge that a patented machine is sold subject to a license restriction that it is to be used only with supplies made and sold by the licensor, induces such licensees to violate such restriction and infringe the patent by buying and using with the machine supplies made by himself, is chargeable with contributory infringement. [Ed. Note.-Contributory infringement of patents, see note to Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsular Light, Power & Heat Co., 43 C. C. A. 485.] In Equity. This is a suit in equity brought in the first instance by Mary V. Cortelyou and another, administrators, etc., and Neostyle Company against Charles Eneu Johnson & Co., for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 584,787, granted June 22, 1897, to Lowe and Cortelyou, covering the machine known as the "rotary neostyle." The administrators aforesaid, at the time the action was brought, owned the legal title to the patent, and the Neostyle Company was licensed under that patent. The original bill was filed November 15, 1902. February 28, 1903, the rights of the administrators were acquired by the Brodrick Copygraph Company, and then was filed a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill bringing in that concern as a party in interest. An answer has been filed to both bills, and the two causes have proceeded as one, under a stipulation to that effect. The license contract of the Neostyle Company is in evidence. The defendant is not charged with a direct infringe ment of the patent in suit, either by the making, the using, or the selling of the patented machine. The defendant is charged with contributory infringement, in that it has, it is alleged, procured the complainants' vendees to directly infringe by the illegal use of the machine; that is, by the use of the machine outside of the right and the scope of the authority conferred upon them. Samuel Owen Edmonds (Edmund Wetmore, of counsel), for complainants. Francis T. Chambers and Jefferson Clark, for defendant. RAY, District Judge (after stating the facts). The patented rotary neostyle is sold under a license restriction, which restriction. precludes the use thereof except with supplies (stencil paper, ink, etc.) manufactured and sold by the Neostyle Company. The charge is that the defendant has been making duplicating ink and selling the same to the complainants' vendees or licensees, with the intent that such ink shall be used on these machines obtained of the complainants by such vendees or licensees in violation of the license restriction. It is charged that the defendant in fact procures such ink to be so used by such licensees. The rotary neostyle was the first machine on the market adapted for rapid stencil duplication, and is the only duplicating machine of the rotary type ever marketed. Its use was commenced in 1899, and soon passed into the hands of the Neostyle Company. At that time the machines were sold without any restrictions as to their use. In a short time that plan of sale proved to be impracticable, because the excessive cost of selling left no profit. In fact, there was a loss. The machines were not being at all times successfully used, because of the inferior supplies offered and furnished by outsiders to the users of the machine. It was also discovered that several improvements on the machine were necessary to make it complete. If the machine was to prove a success, it was necessary that it be operated efficiently and economically, and, that this result might be attained, it was necessary that the machine should be used in the manner contemplated by the manufacturer. Its use in a different manner, as with stencil paper adapted for a hand duplicator or with ink adapted for a printing press, would speedily bring the machine into disrepute. In October, 1899, it was discovered that the plan of selling the machine outright and without a license limitation was disastrous; money was being lost by the manufacturers and sellers, and the machine was falling into disrepute because of their failure to secure high-class work. This failure was due, in some degree at least, to the supplies used. It was deemed unwise to increase the price of the machine. The plan was then formed of selling the machine under a license restriction. The machine was improved, and placed in the hands of users at the price of $50, the same before charged; but each machine, it is asserted, was sold under and with a license restriction forming a part of the contract of sale, and limiting the right of the purchaser to use the same. The purchaser, it is insisted, acquired the right to use the machine only in connection with the specially developed supplies of the Neostyle Company, its ink being one of these supplies. The |