Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Statement of the case.-Anticipation.-Earle, Mumma, Remy & Kelly.

*

3. Earle's planting plough, patented in 1848. This, described in the opinion, was an automatic corn-planter, and, as argued by the complainant, was wholly unlike his planter.

4. Mumma's seed drill. This, also described in the opinion,† was, however, not strongly relied upon by the defend

ants.

5. Remy & Kelly's machine. This machine is described by the court, and is illustrated in Figure 9. For this a

FIG. 9.

patent had been applied for in June, 1850, but the application was then rejected and withdrawn. An experimental use of the machine was also proved.

Upon this condition of things, the question under this fifth machine was much discussed, as to what position, as a defence, a description of a machine contained in a prior rejected application occupied, and, if it was not a good defence by itself, how far it might be considered in connection with a prior experimental use in establishing an anticipation of a patented invention.

6. Three prior machines, of James Abbott, which were produced by the defendants. These, the complainant contended, were unsuccessful experiments, if indeed they were prior in date to his invention. The two principal of these † Infra, p. 208. Infra, pp. 209-211.

* Infra, p. 208.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Statement of the casc.-Kirkman, Joab Brown.

machines are described by the court,* and illustrated in Figures 10 and 11.

FIG. 10.

FIG. 11.

7. John Kirkman's unpatented machine. This was much relied on by the defendants; but the complainant contended that it was materially different from his corn-planter, in having but a single frame, in which were both runners and wheels, instead of two independent frames with runner and wheels like his. It was also insisted that on the evidence it was subsequent in date to his. It is described in the opinion of the court, and illustrated at Figure 12, on the next page.

8. Joab Brown's corn-planter, said to have been used in 1850 and 1853, and another corn-planter for which he applied for a patent in December, 1852, were also adduced. The complainant contended that the machines of 1850 and 1853 were unsuccessful and abandoned experiments, and that the machine for which the said Joab Brown applied for a patent in 1852 was wholly unlike his, the complain† Infra, pp. 212, 218.

* Infra, pp. 211, 212.

Statement of the case.—Anticipation.-Joab Brown, Finn, Case.

FIG. 12.

ant's, machine. This last machine of Joab Brown is analyzed in the opinion,* and illustrated at Figure 13.

FIG. 13.

Besides these, the defendants set up and relied upon the machine of Charles Finn and of Jarvis Case as containing the double-dropping device, claimed by the appellant in Reissue No. 1095.

The double-dropping devices in these two machines are described and illustrated in the opinion of the court, and shown further on in Figures 23 and 24, page 200.

Upon the question of infringement there was much dis

* Infra, pp. 214-216.

VOL. XXIII.

13

† Infra, pp. 233, 234.

Statement of the case.-Infringement. -Bergen, Selby.

cussion. The conclusion arrived at by the court, in declaring the complainant's reissued patents 1037 void for want of novelty, and also the reissued patents Nos. 1091, 1092, 1093, and 1094 void, as not containing patentable novelty, obviates the necessity of here referring to the infringement of the several claims of those patents.

As to the infringement of the other claims, it was contended that the machine of the defendant Selby, and of the defendant Bergen, infringed the claim of Reissue No. 1036. That claim was in these words:

"CLAIM 1036. Having thus fully described the nature and object of my invention, what I claim under the patent is a seedplanting machine, constructed principally of framework, the front part of which is supported on not less than two runners, or shoes, with upward-inclining edges, and the rear part supported on not less than two wheels, the latter being arranged to follow the former, substantially as and for the purpose set forth."

The defendant Bergen's arrangement is shown, in side view, in Figure 14, and was thus described in his patent:

FIG. 14.

"The body of the machine consists of a frame B, mounted on runners, and a rear frame A, mounted on wheels, the two frames being united by a flexible joint, so arranged that it can be ren dered rigid under certain circumstances."

The complainant contended that as the machine had two distinct frames, one frame resting on a pair of rollers, and the other distinct frame resting on a pair of runners or cutters, it was within this claim.

The defendants, besides insisting that this claim was an

Statement of the case.-Infringement.-Bergen, Selby.

ticipated by Kirkman's machine, also contended that the Bergen machine did not infringe, inasmuch as the pivot or hinge was different and differently located.

The machine made by the defendant Selby is shown in Figure 15, and consisted of two distinct frames pivoted

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

together. One of these frames was supported on two runners and the other by two wheels.

The claim of the complainant, under Reissue 1038, was as follows:

"CLAIM 1038. Having thus fully described the nature and object of my invention, what I claim under this patent is, in combination with a seed-planting machine, constructed principally of framework, with not less than two runners and not less than two wheels, a hinge-joint between the point of the tongue and the rear part of the machine, so that one part of the framework may be raised, lowered, adjusted, or supported on the other part, substantially as described."

The mode of attaching the front and rear frame in the defendant Bergen's machine is shown in Figure 16, on the next page, and was thus described in Bergen's patent:

"I construct my seed-planter in two parts, consisting of two frames of equal width and suitable strength, coupled together. . . . These frames are coupled together by a slotted joint at

« ПретходнаНастави »