strong wind blowing against that shore. Held, that these circumstances -Hustede v. Atlantic Refining Co., 74 Fed. 876... . . . . . . .21 C. C. A. 156 Actions-Evidence. 3. On an issue charging the origin of a fire in an elevator to negligence, -Central Vermont R. Co. v. Ruggles, 75 Fed. 953......21 C. C. A. 575 Questions for jury. 4. In an action for the burning of grain in defendant's elevator there was Appeals in patent cases, see "Appeal and Error," 1, 12. Patentability-Invention. 1. The Colby patent, No. 287,001, for an improvement in stem-winding want of patentable invention, in view of the prior state of the art, or, if sustainable at all, is limited to the particular form shown, and is not infringed by a device made under the Bradley patent, No. 411,420, in which the spring is held in position inside the stem in a different way. 71 Fed. 189, reversed. -Dueber Watch-Case Manuf'g Co. v. Robbins, 75 Fed. 17..21 C. C. A. 198 2. It is a commonly accepted rule of patent law that the inventive idea is not ordinarily present in the conception of a combination which merely brings together two or more functions to be availed of independently of each other. The mechanism which accomplishes such a result and no more is ordinarily styled a mere aggregation. -Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredging Co., 75 Fed. 670.......... 8. There is no patentable invention in the conception of the dredging machine in this case, having a boom adapted to operate either with a scoop. which is required for hard soils, or with the "clam-shell bucket," which is used in soft soils. 69 Fed. 620, affirmed. -Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredging Co., 75 Fed. 670.... 4. The Osgood patent, No. 257.888, for a dredging machine or excavator having a boom adapted to operate either a scoop or a "clam-shell bucket," as the character of the soil may require, held void as to claims 1 and 3, as being for a mere aggregation, and not a patentable combination. 69 Fed. 620, affirmed. -Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredging Co., 75 Fed. 670. 5. The Long patent, No. 281,091, for an improved steering head for road ....21 C. C. A. 533 6. Extensive use is only to be considered as evidence of invention in doubtful cases, and it loses its evidential force where it can be attributed to something else than mere novelty, as in case of a use in connection with another device, of a meritorious character, which supplies a long-felt want. -Dueber Watch-Case Manuf'g Co. v. Robbins, 75 Fed. 17..21 C. C. A. 198 Novelty. 7. Claim 1 of patent No. 328,019, issued to Thompson and others, as assignees of Fowler, for a saw to cut metal, with a tough, pliable, steel blade, highly tempered as to its teeth only, to prevent breaking of the blade by sudden twisting, is valid, having utility and novelty. 66 Fed. 57, affirmed. -Thompson v. Jennings, 75 Fed. 572..... ..21 C. C. A. 486 Construction and operation of letters-Limitation of claims. 8. Where certain claims of a patent described a shaft as connected with a piston "to operate the same," and "to operate the same and be operated thereby," but without showing how the connection was made, held, that the connection was not necessarily an actual attachment incapable of separation, but such a relation of parts as would produce simultaneousness of motion between the shaft and piston, and that the claims therefore covered a cam connection. 66 Fed. 761, affirmed. Wallace, Circuit Judge, dissenting. -Blount Manuf'g Co. v. Bardsley, 75 Fed. 674..........21 C. C. A. 495 9. It would establish a dangerous precedent to give to a mere paper patent, which has lain dormant for years, a breadth not contemplated on its face, by reason of some new function discovered long after its issue, and after that function had been availed of in practice by others. -Long v. Pope Manuf'g Co., 75 Fed. 835... ..21 C. C. A. 533 10. The fact that the inventor claims only certain functions for his invention -Long v. Pope Manuf'g Co., 75 Fed. 835.... .21 C. C. A. 533 11. But so much of the mere form given in the specification, drawings, and -Long v. Pope Manuf'g Co., 75 Fed. 835. .21 C. C. A. 533 12. Though, in the specifications of patent No. 328,019, for a saw to cut -Thompson v. Jennings, 75 Fed. 572. .21 C. C. A. 486 13. The word "automatically" cannot be properly applied to describe a -Gould Coupler Co. v. Trojan Car-Coupler Co., 74 Fed. 794. Assignment-Validity. 21 C. C. A. 97 14. A resident of France, who had obtained an American patent, con- -Chauche v. Pare, 75 Fed. 283. .21 C. C. A. 329 15. After this transfer to plaintiff, the attorney wrote his principal that he to a ratification of the assignment which the attorney had attempted to make. -Chauche v. Pare, 75 Fed. 283.. Infringement-What constitutes. .21 C. C. A. 329 16. The Swift patent, No. 209,939, for an improvement in mufflers for the escape of exhaust steam, construed, and held infringed by an apparatus made under the Eames patent, No. 228,744. ---Swift v. Eames Vacuum Brake Co., 75 Fed. 589.......21 C. C. A. 447 17. The Browning patent. No. 254,106. for an improvement in car couplers of the Janney type, which provides a means for automatically opening and holding open the coupler, analyzed and construed, and held not infringed by the Trojan coupler. 70 Fed. 622, disapproved. -Gould Coupler Co. v. Trojan Car-Coupler Co., 74 Fed. 794.. 21 C. C. A. 97 18. The Blount patent, No. 289,380, for an improvement in door checks, and in which the distinguishing feature is a liquid regulating cylinder, separated from the actuating spring, and having a by-pass, hdd valid and infringed as to the second claim, which must be restricted to the combination shown. 66 Fed. 761, affirmed. Wallace, Circuit Judge. dissenting. -Blount Manuf'g Co. v. Bardsley, 75 Fed. 674..........21 C. C. A. 495 19. The Blount patent. No. 485,357, for a "door check and closer,” hell valid and infringed as to claims 2 and 3, which must, however, be restricted to the specific combinations shown and described. 66 Fed. 761, affirmed. Wallace, Circuit Judge, dissenting. -Blount Manuf'g Co. v. Bardsley, 75 Fed. 674..........21 C. C. A. 495 Actions. 20. A mere licensee has no authority to sue infringers in his own name. -Chauche v. Pare, 75 Fed. 283.. ...........21 C. C. A. 329 21. The fact that an alleged infringer was at one time, before the alleged infringement took place, a licensee under the patent, does not estop him from disputing its validity, though in a doubtful case it might have considerable evidential force as an admission. -Dueber Watch-Case Manuf'g Co. v. Robbins, 75 Fed. 17. .21 C. C. A. 198 22. The fact that defendant, by advertisements and other public declarations, has maintained the patentability of machines of the same general character as that which he is charged with infringing, can have little weight on the question of the validity of the patent; this being a matter of public concern, as to which neither the inventor nor the alleged infringer can be permitted to substitute his own acts or opinions for the judgment of the court. - Osgood Dredge Co. v. Metropolitan Dredging Co., 75 Fed. 670... 23. Where a patent is sustained after a full hearing on the merits, the complainant should not be allowed, under all circumstances, to waive his right to injunction, and thereby deprive the defendant of an opportunity to appeal from the interlocutory decree, under the provisions of Act March 3, 1891, § 7. In cases in which the taking of an account would involve much labor and expense, the trial court should award an injunction, even though the complainant desires to waive his right to such relief; in other cases, where the taking of an account would involve little labor and expense, the complainant should be permitted to waive an injunction until the decree becomes final. The determination of this question rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. The practice should be so regulated as to avoid a multiplicity of appeals when they can be avoided without injury to either party. -Lockwood v. Wickes, 75 Fed. 118. ..21 C. C. A. 257 Offenses against postal laws-Consolidation of indictments. 1. Rev. St. § 5480, provides that the indictment, information, or complaint in a prosecution for using the post office for a scheme to defraud may severally charge three offenses when committed within six months, and requires a single sentence to be given in such case. Held, that the consolidation of eight indictments charging separate offenses did not. under this provision, in effect make but one case and one indictment. so that the court could pronounce but one sentence upon a conviction in the consolidated cases. --Howard v. United States, 75 Fed. 986.... Punishment. ..21 C. C. A. 586 2. Nor does such provision require that there shall be but one punishment for all the offenses of this character committed by a person within six months. - Howard v. United States, 75 Fed. 986.. PRACTICE IN CIVIL CASES. In federal courts, see "Courts," 4, 5. PREFERENCES. To creditors, see "Assignments for Benefit of Creditors," 1. To shippers, see "Carriers," 7-23. .21 C. C. A. 586 |