*1 212 v. et al.
Brooks et al. Fiske Ignatius L. Tyler, William W. Wood Brooks, Artemas deceased, Woodworth, William worth, Administrator Grantee, G. J ames Wilson, also as and Appellants, G. and Nicholas Norcross, v. John Fiske doing firm of Fiske & Norcross. under business throughout, an them to .boards planing machine A for infringement of decided not to be an Norcross, which was patented n in 1845. which was obtained in 1828, reissued machine, patent machines both explained operation cause, Curtis did not sit Justice having (Mr. counsel for the patentee.) the Circuit Court United an This was appeal as a court of Massachusetts, States for the District of sitting equity. of the Woodworth were owners The appellants machine, documents which are set respecting for a-planing Rousseau, v. in the case of Wilson extenso, forth report a bill for an Howard, filed against 646. They appellees them from a certain ma- to restrain using injunction that chine, as the known Norctoss ground Other matters of their letters-patent. infringement state. into it is bill, were not material here brought answer, their that say, jointly, appellees they used otherwise, Norcross, of Fiske and not under the firm & 25th, 1849, more, and no since December one planing believe, Lowell, said but else; mill.in nowhere they aver, that-said machine is not the same in therefore princi- the said Woodworth mode operation ple therefrom, none but the different substantially contains claimed the said but combinations Woodworth patent, invention, secured to said let- a new Norcross by different issued to him the United States duly granted ters-patent, America, on the twelfth one day February, year which, thousand hundred certified eight fifty; duly exhibit, refer as an thereof, answer, this their they copy substantial difference the machines. said showing between then admit of the bill of answers filing complaint bill have been filed in this them in charged recited bill; in this but agreement they making say that machine referred to agreement, they to a then were using, according granted constructed Hutchinson, to one 16th July, they admit Biske et al.. the first combination claimed it embraced further The answers contain the patent. amended averments: following defendants, And these further answering, say believe, aver, *2 and therefore that the said Woodworth patent of first in the claim to therein, void want part, .novelty of wit, for with employment rotating planes device rollers or to the board in analogous place; in France, same been before substantially having patented thing and wit, 1818, Victor, in 1817 Sir Louis Mari by Josep1 and de Mam.eville, in 1825 Sir Leonore Thomas Roguin, by and described in the vets and vol. called Bre- printed publication commonly to 12; 27 d’Inventions, 23, 212, 28, vol. and plates pages these 116, 111 to defendants pages plate refer also the Hill in the said mentioned , Norcross, Hill, used publicly by Joseph Lynn, prior invention of the said combination the said Wil- pretended by liam Woodworth, deceased.” “ And these defendants further that believe, and say, they aver, therefore that the said issued to William W. Woodworth, 8,1845, is not for the same invention as the July issued to Woodworth, William December original patent 1828, exclusive disclaimed 2d, 1843, January in the bill.” alleged plaintiffs’ these defendants, And further that answering, say informed numerous and able believe, by experts, they verily aver, therefore that the used them and by machine patented said an Norcross, afores'aid, is not by infringement said nor of patent, any rights of plaintiffs under ment that the same; question of they pray infringe- tried under the direction of the by jury court.” To this answer was filed. general replication Much evidence taken, March, 1852, was and in the cause came on bill annexed, heard'upon general replication, therein, taken before the proofs District Judge Court, Mr. Justice Curtis been of counsel in the case. having court that the machine made and used adjudged by defendants, and of in the said bill,,is not an complained infringe- qf ment secured to the under and right complainants virtue of the reissued to William W. letters-patent granted Woodworth, administrator, eighth day July, one thousand year hundred referred to eight forty-five, bill, said and under and virtue of the several mesrie bill; veyances recited in the said the court doth thereupon order, decree, be, that complainants’ bill said adjudge, and the is, dismissed costs. hereby Piske et al. v.
.The
court.
complainants appealed
was
and Mr. G.
Curtis,
It
Mr. Keller
argued by
T.
for the
and Mr.
for.the
Whiting
appellees.
appellants,
finds
himself unable
an
reporter
give
intelligible ex-
planation
without
arguments
counsel}
introducing
be out
would
in a law
engravings,
place
book.
fact, models were used in the
argument before
court. . He
therefore,
to omit all the
.compelled,
of counsel.
arguments
delivered,
Mr. Justice CATRON
court.
opinion
-
ps
before
filed
Fiske and
was
Norcross
bill
machine for
-assignees
patented
boards, and-of
them.
tonguing
that
It
alleged
patented Norcross,
defendants,
used
was
its
combination,
substantially
and in the result it
the same as that
produced,
assigned
in which the
district
defendant’s
complainants,
used;
elder,
complainant’s patent
use of
machine was
Norcross’s
infringement
invented William Woodworth.
*3
the bill
The Circuit
dismissed
on the
Court
and
hearing;
n
on to
this
are called
revise. The contest
is
decree we
in the
been
more
below,
court
could
much
hardly
stringent;
bestowed on the case
was obviously
by
consideration
judge
from his
as
which is laid
it,
before
.opinion,
decided
appears
who
and the decree
of which opinion
founded
theUS,'
accuracy
so,
examine. Before
it is
on
are
it-,
doing
we
called
proper
n defendants,
used
does
by
that
state,
machine
boards; and
Woodworth’s
groove
tongue
in
is not
controversy.
machine
extends to
insisted that-
his
monopoly
is
It
an
thickness,
equal
a-
of reducing
principal
mode
such claim.
sets
It is
up
any
whether
patentee
question
provided,
act
case
section
the 6th
by
shall
fully
-machine
inventor
explain
principle
any
has
modes in which
contemplated
application
the several
which it
character,
or
distinguished
may
of
from
out
principle,
: “And
specify
point
inventions
particularly
other
shall
he .claims
combination,
part, improvement,
of discovery.”
or
An improvement
invention
own
as his
the sta-
invented, as
claimed
having
is here
.machine
shall be
speci-
particularly
that such improvement
tute requires
tp and the
inventor of the
swear
d'onc in
applicant
it is
;
writing,
fied
improvement.
believes he is
fir$t
that-he
are
know what
they
is required,
public
This
so.that
et al. Biske et al.
v.
the existence of the
doing during
monopoly,
prohibited
and what
are
as a
to have at
end of the term,
sideration
grant.
v.
In the
of Lord
Brown,
words
1 Ellis
Hastings
Campbell,
453, The
Blackburn,
state
&
patentee ought
distinctly
it is
and describe the
what
for which he claims a
limits
patent,
” or,
in the
of this
cóurt,
Evans
monopoly;
language
.tonguing, grooving, thickness. (cid:127) the mode th.en, after The specification, describing preparing “When the or board, cnus: boards have proceeds plank thus, be a separate they may placed prepared, (on machine,) a a or on or suitable on frame against carriage, resting platform, or so as acted reduc- upon by cutting rotary planing to revolve wheel, which wheel be either horizon- carriage made ing may or The be vertically, tally, may preferred. be moved or board to be may sustains the upon, plank means, operated chain, an endless of a rack and forwards pinion, band, of-the devices well or or friction by any by geared or materials to for carriage, known machinists be board ters, advancing acted in machines for various or purposes. plank be to moved on towards cut- edges cutting or so.that its knives knives, on the or cylinder, planing and cut cutters, revolve, board, meet may it is made to to that in which advance. a direction contrary method are in this prevented of the cutters edges are surface, and made first into with its cut contact coming upwards face; towards said the plank from reduced sur- part are protected injury whieli means edges board, is more better -and matter, plank, evenly gritty planed direction.” than when moved the reversed (cid:127) of, to, and explanation There is afterwards reference In drawings, figure as follows: accompanying drawings, parts operating á principal is perspective representation and combined thé when planing, arranged so be as to when arranged capa- tonguing, ble grooving; time, the the same axis two planing planks wheel vertically.” placed being are to be f. f. stand the rollers f. which vertically, And again, it close to the car- made press against of the cutters from the action and thus drawing riage, surface from the bed, from its planed cutting plank up means of weights borne may upwards; .they machinists. single in manner well known springs, rollers friction geared, horizontal the horizontal board, and the above them rollers feed with, pr feed used without the directly carriage, plate under t-he cylinder.” afterwards, And in “ process tonguing describing its plank, planed grooving, says: edges with the into contact passes-'.the planing brought cylinder, are so wheels, above described tonguing *5 217 1853.. et
Brooks Físke al. ' as shafts, that the these tongue shall groove be left at the distance from the face the the plank; proper sustained means of being planing cylinder by against latter otherwise, or bed or so that it cannot carriage, plate, deviate, be must reduced to a thickness and but proper correctly tongued and grooved.” boards, To meet the different thickness of-the or be the shaft of must made movable cylinder bearings means, or other to it to the screws, work; or adjust carriage or bed be so to made, as raise board or plate may plank up to planing cylinder.” result, '. means to the board to an produce reducing thickness in horizontal are the rollers equal pressure f.,f. in connection above two feed plank; operating rollers;' and the rollers pressure (says specification) levers, down which it has been held not by springs weighted to as are use.” show this such in common necessary drawing, These are not as new, rollers claimed but here admitted to old, to common use when nor is intimation any given specification granted; claim,-that rollers were intended to be used in pressure combination for board to an equal In the thickness. in description original patented all, rollers are not mentioned at pressure they to the sét forth as are amended chine, machine in the having belonged original of 1845 ; last-described ma- specification declare, differs from the as experts materially original pa- case; tented in 1828. But it is in this into necessary, go the, set forth in of variance the answer, we will allegation pro- at once to examine ceed question And to infringement. this, do we must first what inquire Woodworth’s claim to combination invention is. His cutter novelty rotary old, old, his bed and his wheel rollers are old plate likewise. relied invention on a new combination elements, to of three the result of produce its motion machine; claim mono- is the employment with the rotary planes poly bench, of a face the board from drawn when being planes cutting upwards, surface, reduced or planed described. board _ As the advances cutters will strike rotary a second, times in tend to lift into the thirty violently bench, knives; down strong pressure And in the next the cutters required. over the place, hori- it, bed zontal a fixed distance stationary,
VOL. XV. et al. v. Biske out it so crush winds down forcibly pressed lumber, the machine will reduce the necessity in .warped board to throughout. of Hill’s, machine is an Norcross’s *6 his Hill used use when Woodworth invented in 1828. was on the cutter, he underside bench the which rotary cutters it; section cut the with a through extending through the. board, take the the so far as to bench to upperside, passing above, of over the flat surface the wood desired. Feed depth a board, to forward the and steel were spring employed rollers a used to of the section of the board keep, hand-saw) (made metal surface the a smooth pressed spriqg steady. a roller then, as does. this board, and But operated pressure his not used for the Woodworth used spring bench this, that the. face the above the the ; rollers into board from drawn cutters, cutters drew them; the prevented to the so that this bench is ana- bench, it down the and is to Woodworth’s also in device logous combination hence these two cutters; with the elements rotary combined, when Woodworth thus existed, patent. got a bar over the cutters, machine had and Hill’s immediately bench, revolved; cut the where the knives through covering bar, rollers forced the bench, board, this and the the feed between and the cutter also but as the rest bar was wheel stationary, to a and the cutters extended fixed distance above stationary, bench, was, that the face board consequence upper over- came machine of thickness. To unequal defect, the rest bar, made station- come Norcross (previously frame, on the vertical side a square cap pieces ary,) wheel, fixed his cutter and cutters journals other, to each rest bar being stationary relatively always in a distance frame supported apart. stationary bench, to the and so made as. to frame fastened allow guide of the rest-bar, down vertical movement free up cutting the board over the face of the bench, As passes, cylinder. under the on the from rest the whole bar, frame sliding rests weight board; and as cutters strike distance guaged it. bar, bar, move down with the up its state is of an that when the unequal follows rough side to the cuttérs is thickness, down presented pressed bench, thicker of the board will force parts’ up and cutters frame draw the rest-bar above the movable board, will bench, be dressed to increased thickness thickness of the cutters rest space F, sec- set outer of the rest part, apart. Opposite which the surface of the board tion of bed over planed passes. ITiske et al. bar, horizontal to the rest. The two bars form a throat- which serves hold the board as it piece steady passes through the machine. state In view this the rule is, facts that if a combination has, here, three different known and the parts, result is pro- the union all accomplished posed parts, arranged other, with reference to each the use of two of these parts only, third, combined with which is different in the substantially' of its manner and connection with others, arrangement combination, not the same and no infringement. from testi- arrangement, appears of the models and mony ings presented experts, draw- by comparison us, was the the invention of only novelty Woodworth. Bentham, described a cut- April, rotary and an bench, which, ter fixed, when became adjustable adjusted, so that the board would be of a determinate thickness when between them. passed The Hill machine cut from its to its un- planed surface, and had feed rollers planed it down spring to the bed; while the bed served *7 drawn into the cutters. being The Baltimore machine the one witness who describes it (as reduced the to a uniform thickness deposed) plank by passing it the bed a bed cutter, between fixed and a fixed and on down kept roller. by pressure The French of machine and in use as Roguin patented, early 1818, as cutter bench; and were rotary had.the stationary to each and must have cut other, the board of an even relatively had it been so hard to the bed as to force out pressed thickness the but this ; seems not to have been the case. The cut warps advance was with the of the -board planes machine, and from the and for ; surface planed very slight. this reason the lift of the cutters was u rest bar as in Hill’s machine. kept steady by This is all we deem to describe, in to other necessary regard machines, to the end of on the passing question judgment As to the of the Wood- (cid:127)infringement. question originality worth machine, with the other earlier ma- compared chines evidence, in and and produced explained by experts; as to the machine, whether the secondly, question, original ’which had, Woodworth obtained his not in or had patent rollers, rollers in connection with other pressure which now claimed as the element of the main maehiire repatented 1845, we forbear as we .these deciding, questions suppose would be more left issues, to on where the jury appropriately witnesses be could heard in court. It is to deemed open proper v. Biske the fact of new and remark that useful procuring a reissue, under the which machine assumption as of feed and 1828, for want useful patented as is would defence, ques- now used alleged present fraud, committed on the tion of his patentee public by by giving reissued made 1845, date, original discovery, n in'1828, and similar inventions made be- thereby overreaching 1828 and tween There one feature covered in Norcross’s which is not claimed be an It is this: to patent, as the infringement. bar down F, board the rest passes under weighted on the bed section of over which first edge and bears rest bar is concave on heavily passes. the the bed over slightly end of the side of that section of the further planed plank; somewhat de- board last passes, being than the sec- made lower opposite pressed, tion. by bevelling bent, and struck means, the board By on a ; cutters densed concave surface the wood being grain the knots more boards, so as to bend grasp out the cutter thrown them firmly, prevent being to into the sur- and also the fibres from planed eating machine bent, of the board the Norcross face. Because cannot be used for of boards, edges tonguing these the board must be operations. straight perform rollers, in Woodworth’s From the distance the ma- as to room chine, have so separated give cylinder and is cut on a rotate, the board tends to curve convex upwards, knots, surface, thus them be be causing loosening out, the surface of the thrown planed causing or coarse, the wood is eaten in where also cross-grained uneven, full of small ridges. must, however, We this last in Nor- disregard also discard the cross’s parts treat his invention tongue groove, and, on one side machine for boards only; a single To facts, this state question infringement. try *8 of Woodworth’s com- use all the Norcross- must parts infringe, bination. 1. The the board to the use of rollers to firmly the cutters and drawn into torn bed, and it from being is the claim to out the warps, principal pieces, press no such nor can Norcross uses pressure invention. they machine to such be in his purpose. employed of the bed in Norcross’s it is insisted that the section plate .But board before it reaches over machine, passes of Woodworth; roller cutter, pressure equivalent to his in its that the throat-piece equivalent, operation, a. Biske et al. F, 2. That Norcross uses rest roller. as an equiv- stationary alent bed to Woodworth’s that the front section of plate; the F, roller, used for pressure bed combina- .acting being the rest tion with Woodworth’s bed representing plate, alike in both machines,- cutter it that follows Nor- operating fact, cross, combination; it disguised used Woodworth’s machine down. turning upside remarks of decided cause in Judge Sprague, (who made in the Circuit answer Court,) foregoing argument, distinct, us, are so that we deem satisfactory proper be should in this are as follows: adopted they opinion. They “ The witnesses, when asked in what plaintiff’s machine defendant’s divided find the roller, are plaintiff’s pressure some of them that it is bed, because opinion; say the board drawn into the axis of the prevents being cutter, that function as the characteristic of the considering plain- Others tiff’s roller. find rest, what called the because that upon down the bed. But in the Hill presses roller the same officeof performed board down, pressing the bed the same officeof drawn preventing towards the being axis. If either Hill of these sets of witnesses correct contained the roller, machine also and as it plaintiff’s pressure had' a bed cutter, it would follow that it piece had the rotary a construction, combination. Such therefore, cannot plaintiff’s is, to make be maintained. The truth that after the Hill machine, it left to some new only arrangement elements, is, the three 'that some new mode of combinatiorf. Woodworth’s invention regarded may improvement Hill’s.' H uses this Norcross then he in- improvement upon it, he add to whatever with whatever in- new fringes, vention he connects it. does not If he does not use this he, improvement other means out work infringe, although may by same ultimate result.” “ What, then, is the which Woodworth made on Hill machine ? He took the the in a fixed which was rotating cylinder, bed, a fixed below position posi- above bed. is the tion only change arrangement of the three elements. But it transferred to the roller pressure 'a before been function which had the bed. In performed by roller Hill’s board down onlykept it from the' axis bed,-the latter drawn into keeping Woodworth’s,' of the cutter. roller performs these offices. The effect of this is to the board on both plane lower, is, side instead of the and the result of that upper the board not ac- thickness, out of an uniform which was comes Hill. In his complished by rotary cylinder being. 19* *9 Brooks ot Biske al efc al. below the knife bed, with above it, the projecting placed edge surface the knife was at a fixed of distance above the kept upper bed, of the cut from lower of the side board, breadth,, its whole so much of it as was through length Thus, if the to that distance. of the knife was a equal quarter edge bed, an inch above the the board pressed it, it would take of an off inch quarter under closely board extent, remain of the its whole and if it side before, it would thickness an unequal thick- unequal ness. in a above, fixed position By placing cylinder between a certain distance of the cutter and edge keeping all of the board above that distance taken bed, off being it side, on the comes out of a uni- cutting upper necessarily by form thickness.” us look machine. If let at the Norcross it has Now any part roller, it is is- the rest. Let us, equivalent pressure clearness, be'a sake of consider that to
then, roller. pressure ? has been done of the three elements the same as it Norcross He has left the What' then ar- inwas Hill’s. rangement roller bed; is below the still rotary cylinder bed, the bed the drawn into the down from keeps keeps being this: axis of the cutter. His Is movable, made the He has cylinder cutting vertically, before, rest, connected not and has roller, so that when the latter is forced is, with' the pressure up- board, of the it draws the cut- wards by the.increased is made to cut it, with which just much ter upwards thereby board, of the as the roller is the under side pressed more contrivance, the increased thickness. edge of By rest, or, in a .fixed relation to the cutter is other the words, kept them roller; between space Hill’s, and also in same, Woodworth’s, whereas in always bed, and not knife a fixed relation to the of the had the edge- defendant, therefore, has made a roller. The new the pressure does usé invention, and the arrangementj and independent of combination plaintiff.” mode stated, we that the reasons above ma- opinion For did not com- infringe the-patent chine respondents circuit order that the decree of the court and therefore plainants, dismissing bill, be affirmed. WAYNE, and Mr. Justice McLEAN, Justice Mi-. Justice Mr. dissented. NELSON, McLEAN. Justice Mr. court. defendants rest dissent I opinion bn three defence grounds: TEJRM, al. v. Biske ct in Woodworth’s invention. A novelty 1. want Woodworth, issued new on the 2. That in the sux* patent to one, old correct the a new inven- specifications, render claimed, not contained in first tion patent. *10 machine is different 3. That the defendant’s substantially the plaintiff’s. been a The Woodworth has subject investigation patent States, courts of the before the circuit United frequently of this court. And invention although originality been, sustained, still, has the fact of believe, I uniformly novelty one depends upon proof, whoiv disputed by any evidence primd suit patent brought. facie in A defence which denies right patentee. novelty the invention, must be proved. is dated the 27th of De- original patent “ cember, 1828. He describes invention an improve- his ment in the method of planing, tonguing, grooving, cutting into other boards, either material, mouldings, plank, for' and thickness, the same to an width and also equal for metallic, brick, cutting facing mouldings, facing dressing or other He then describes the ma- mineral, substances. result is And which this chinery by conclusion, produced. says, saws, that he does not claim invention circular wheels, use; have been in but he or cutter long knowing they invention, as his of cut- claims application boards, &c., as above stated, wheels to &c. ter claim, There no written specifications, pressüré which confine the on both sides of the rollers cutting cylinder, it to an board to its reduced thick- necessarily place, at the but in the these rollers ;. ness appear proper drawings, uniform, as to reduce the boarddo'a and.are places, arranged so. thickness. constitute a The written thé including drawings, specifications, as the claim of the and must be construed patent, 5Í4, it is Goodwin, Sumner,- said,'if 3 v. plaintiff. Ryan instrument, court can and extent nature the whole exact perceive, inventor, it is bound to of the claim made by. effect. The same full adopt interpretation, give 286; is held in and’in Ames v. Stone, 270, v. 1 Wyeth Story, Howard, 482, 1 Sumner, 485, it is said the drawings are if, taken in words, connection with the comparison the words the other and the the one would drawings, explain work, skilful mechanic sufficiently perform enable sufficient;” 1 Elsee, v. Car. & specification Bloxam Payne, 558, is to the same effect. mono- were construed Formerly, giving patents strictly et al. v. Fiske but of late inventions are treated plies; England, years, differ- and a is taken view in favor of liberal ently, Blan- right. chard doctrine in this siderations of Sumn. 539. This has been the Sprague, settled and it is founded country, highest justice. delivered policy opinion, by my brother Curtis this as the of the court, cites the morning, organ authorities. believed, No it is has ever been patent, in this granted has been so much this one. This country, litigated affords no its evidence of value. after Wood- unsatisfactory Very shortly worth's machine -was put operation, system piracy commenced, and, nume- although twenty-five years elapsed, suits are still rous Mr. Justice pending contesting right. was one of .the first whose duties Story judges required him to scrutinize this in all its sustained it parts, and.he before the all. were corrected. And specifications also sustained in 7 How. it, court where the. says, for a specifications accompanying application full to enable a mechanic with skill to build sufficiently a machine.” ordinary And this is what law requires. *11 “ the corrected the specifications patentee says: Having jed descri the and combinations of thus fully parts and parts, of the machine for and operation planing, tonguing, grooving modes boards or and shown various in which the plank, be constructed and made to without the operate, may principle changing or mode of what is claimed operation therein, as William Woodworth, the invention of deceased, is of as the herein de- employment' rotary planes, substantially scribed, in with rollers or device, combination analogous the boards drawn being when prevent cutting upwards, described. planes, or from the surface, as planed And also the of with rotating planes wheels, cutter for for the grooving, tonguing purposes boards, at Sec., one planing, tonguing, grooving’ opera- as described.” tion, “And, the combination of either the finally, tonguing wheel, cutter boards, See., grooving tonguing grooving described; the effect of the boards, these such- as to &c., in -operations being the cutters the boards to- steady, prevent drawing from. wheels, wards the centre of the whilst it is moved .cutter &c. machinery,” in France, L. 1817 and invented Roguin, years wood, it is Sec., a machine for moulding, planing, on the same as principles alleged, substantially machine. 3. al. v. JTiske e't al. examined, were Cir- number experts A considerable as usual in sides, and such Court, on both opinions, cuit cases, written, conflict. Such in testimony, were directly result, to a lead court satisfactory weighing cannot be done where witnesses evidence, jury, might There to be no court. seems other mode examined open than to read what the ex- conclusion, correct at a of arriving make on said, specifications up"'an opinion perts on an examination of the models. of the patents, The French machine was improved patentee “ the first could idea of not vary. says: parent the wood to action consisted in This idea subjecting parent to this tool a of a tool of ro- shape, impart particular but the either of rnovement; remained, choice making tary under it with the wood to advance tool stationary, causing — motion one the other a slow rotary, progres- progressive in the construction of the machine The first was sive.- described second adopted petition letters-patent; support adopted in construction has improved machine.” “ the structure of It is After he. cylinder, describing says: and to the of this car- cast-iron carriage, borne riage back by is attached axletree, an iron brass' two bearing pinions, tend to rack, into movement regulate which gear bench moves itself means of vertically by carriage. tend raise it it, it, arid or lower accord- screws support “ be worked.” Four small, of the wood to the thickness ing metal, in the interior angles plates graduated superstructure, a to fix this act bench regulator perfectly “ abut the bench Two iron square's horizontal position.” “ has both ends.” says, Experience,” taught weight. sufficient, the vibration bench was singly, the machine there to it when operation, imparted the, waves surface from this vibration planed resulted board.”. of. the the weight was'obviated by carriage. iron, is of cast about two hundred The carriage weighs *12 It that the should forty-one pounds. necessary carriage as so. t- be the be of sufficient raised strain of weight, by n thetool.” “ a claw, back bench the carries The which like a is rested and bench. At wood stopped carpenter’s wood is movable other extremity, stopped by dogs, a bar under screws.” which passes pressure pass ;1 seen, We have And he further description says: called serves the mece first 'machine, guide (because to the wood tool for effectually under guide Biske was fixed on the of the moulding) superstructure bench. machine, new this borne by piece carriage.” From this that the description appears, planing cylindfer carried over frame, iron by passes' surface of the board, bed which is fastened on claw at one end, and at the. This bench, other movable on which the dogs.” is the so as placed, is movable adjusted vertically, by screws to of the wood to be worked. bed, wood fastened on this and the adjustable iron frame carries is of sufficient cutting cylinder weight board, to the cutters on the this cannot re- machinery duce the thickness. When the plank-to same bench rises or falls, the rises whole and- falls, surface and the so so on knives' cutting operate by pressure cannot sur- long face as to reduce board. But' inequalities this can be rollers, done préssure Woodworth’s — each side of the one so as to ad- adjustable, cutting cylinder mit fixed, so as the other to admit the plank; pass- when reduced age required thickness. the.plank, French machine a smooth but the surface, may present inequali- not., ties of the board will be removed. will remain in They before the. proportion operation. It is which, or bar first argued, piece bench, which, fastened one, was improved annexed' to the as a carriage, operated roller. If this admitted,
were ure roller it would not remove the as one difficulty; press- There bar could no, answer purpose. valuable rollers, must be fixed one as above" stated, two or two adjustable, reduce, bar and an bed, adjustable an scribe But if equal thickness. L. be himself to de- Roguin permitted is, function bar, the wood under the guide tool for Shall grooving, tonguing, moulding.” and. language and' inventor this bar be misapplied, .appropriated a use which it would seem he never of, to render invalid thought Woodworth’s patent? Several of the'witnesses on both- sides gave testimony' from the called Brevets of L. in book description Roguin’s. patent, published ” was not d’.Invehtions; but, as book pub- lished invention, until after its is evi- description dence far as it so attached only agrees specification And does L. from original it. Roguin. appear, a, filed him, certified of which has been specifications, copy M. that there some material recently procured Perpigna, are. variances. look to We must the- authentic therefore paper certified, machine. regard evidence drawings, does, on- of this not seem to. organization *13 227 et al. v.
Brooks JTiske et al. Woodworth’s, is and the result differ- the same principle ent. similar to that of other French The alleged is This machine Woodworth’s, De Manneville’s. was patented and described in the called France 1825 work in in printed machines, The embraced two Brevets d’Inventions.” object the-grooving, planing, having for-(their) work; intended inlaid thickness, a uniform all sorts wood well as dimensions. boards, The whatsoever may inventor calls them á planer. groover inventor, confused, is The of this by description One of the defendants’ witnesses intelligible. scarcely two one of which is called describes it as having planes, rough, to the other both of are down face of smooth, the the ward from kept and for- tool-bearer, and are backward moved by to and motion. movable by rough plane crank is board, held to it the smooth spring; board, of the finisher, immovable, principally, plane, except from it. The position separate shavings .to — the horizontal rollers board is rollers; rollers, friction edgewise, resting and it is carried of fluted by pair cylinders vertical, and to each which rollers other; parallel préss board, which, one, side of the one of the back each upon made to slide boxes, in its held of the thickness of the and thus made up by spring, board. Ano- inequalities yield ther same vertical called .pair holding position, neither of which is nor.are cylinders, yielding, they discharging fluted; thicknesses, the inventor and to the different adjust sug- diameters, rollers of different and on an bed. adjustable gests can at once see that this is one not Any organization similar to Woodworth’s machine. It not the same machinery principle, is it like it. nor in substance This remark is made in Woodworth, claimed and not to regard all the elements of that combination is formed. In the Manneville machine there is no combination of rollers cutters, Woodworth’s; as in cutters have with reciprocating rotary motion instead of a one. Several of the rotary elements in both machines are the sanie,, so not as to act in the same manner or on arranged ciple. prin-
Some of think, the witnesses for the defendants that from two French the Woodworth machine patents, might constructed considered invention; without but these machines must be and not In the defence it is singly, together. alleged, reference to that.“the same thing L. France, substantially patented et al. v. Biske Manneville. defence, Roguin, sustained, as neither of the patents are substan- respect, same as Woodworth’s. tially is, whether, next for consideration point amended *14 in 1845, a Woodworth’s patent, new invention specifications in the claimed, original patent. not embraced was admitted, that the subject-matter must It the new was patent surrendered, same. correct patent defective lent intent. which did not result from fraudu- specifications, This was secured to the right patentee by section of act of 1836; and, on an thirteenth cation patent appli- he, to the commissioner of there -had patents, finding issued for fraud, been no a new the same inven- patent as the described, law more tion, authorized. accurately v. Stone held, case of Woodworth 749, In the Story’s Rep. that the action of Blunt, Ib. Allen v. com a of a surrender missioner, in a patent accepting issuing unless one, concluded the fraud be new shown. parties, And Railroad, 4 Howard, West Chester this Stimpson court “ mistake or manner the In whatever inadvertence say, is immaterial. The action of the occurred government in .as be considered must this renewing patent, closing point, for before and as court and open inquiry, leaving jury, of fraud question only.” The corrected the new on a specifications patent, surren- be different from those der, would that were necessarily defect- of the commissioner And it is the not to
ive. a duty permit be claimed under new invention to pretence correcting defective specifications. omitted in the new Some patent were things claimed in the old one. Biit the principal objection this be, seems to rollers were in the claimed in the ground new not claimed old one. were This is a patent, These mistake, as has shown. rollers were re- already in that were more way drawings, accu- presented cpuld have been described than written rately speci- These are a fication. not It does drawings patent. embrace a corrected appear, specifications new invention, not included patent. original is, whether The third last the-defendants’ machine point is an of the plaintiffs’. infringement In of the Circuit’ Court this case, said, opinion was, that it defect the Hill machine did not reduce desideratum the the tiff has a uniform thickness. plain- for which he was an entitled obtained improvement, accomplished to a has The-defendant patent. pur- al. v. Biske the of his plaintiff, merely without using pose and therefore does not own, infringe.” invention a hew that the Circuit seem, Court would these remarks From for as entitled to patent, reducing considered uniform-thickness,” but does not patent to a boards mistaken, as I shall the Circuit Court was it. cover endeavor to fact in-law. show, in controverted, that Woodworth’s. is not It boards thickness. He reduce does did. machinery not form for claim board to a uni- could reducing an exclusive could not for thickness; right given centuries, boards have been to a For reduced a result. such and, other means. hind perhaps, by planes, uniform Woodworth claim? law, could He under the What, claim, a combination of claim, as he did machi- had right such a result. Was it which would produce necessary, nery claim, which is done to of his what distinguish summing up of his has not machine Ahich he has invented he parts the combination of his machine claim invented,' that should boards to uniform thickness ? This *15 his invention to that it have limited when was purpose, would intended to to that and applied, many applicable, other purposes. law of an sixth section inventor is the By his invention in to describe important particular, required every a so as to enable those skilled his patent, in the application make, it construct, or science which appertains, art if a same; use the and the invention be compound, “ the several modes he has to state in which is required or character the which principle application templated “ other and shall inventions; be distinguished par- it may out the or combi- point part, improvement, ticularly specify he claims as his own invention and nation, which discovery.” and, the whole a if is with He required accompany drawing, , model, machine, a &c. clear Woodworth has he has the Is explained principle, several modes which contemplated appli- and cation which, of his or character principle from other in- act, distinguished language an ? is ventions tongued, grooved, by plank planed, all, is in the unknown before. This machinery organization the act which requires. up, summing claim, Include, does not in his that Woodworth It objected thickness. to a uniform The invention that of plank this, result, or consists in is done. the means which A VOL. xv. 20 ál. v. Biske et not the This been the effect, is invention. appears an of the Circuit Com i. point opinion turning of his has, in the specifications machinery- But reduced to thick- board is uniform that the necessarily stated ness. as its He plank, planed part says edges are into contact with the brought planing cylinder, passes are wheels, so above-described tonguing shall be shafts, tongue groove placed face of the the. latter at distance from the plank, left proper means of the sustained against planing cylinder by deviate, cannot otherwise, or bed or so that it carriage, plate, thickness, must be reduced to correctly but tongued bined proper Here Woodworth describes com- grooved.” grooving; planing, operation tonguing, thickness, is, is. reduced to which the required proper &c. thickness; grooved,” correctly tongued boards efiect of his planing clearly, described. cutters He the board planing says, kept or otherwise. press- of the. or bed means plate, carriage, written, and also in are ure rollers claimed in his specification He also which show applied. hqw'they drawings, same machine with says, Fig. represents axe.s and intended operate cylinder horizontally, frame B B; same time. A A the on one plank only knives, C the C cutters the heads of planing cylinder; different thicknesses-of the said to meet the .heads, attached to be made of the shaft of the the bearings cylinder may plank; movable work, means, screws other adjust so as to raise be made carriage plate may cylinder.” 12th, 1850. was issued The is the defendants February machine. That Hill’s to be an It improvement upon alleged of a machine, from .the consisted planing cylinder, description, it,. bench, through, platform aperture thick- to cut required cutters so as planing ness operated, away any action; to. its. from the surface of the plank subjected *16 a of to the bench was spring relation the permanent; cylinder to and bore the the cylinder,- nearly opposite plate plank rollers carried bench; forced towards the feeding cylinder machine. same as in Woodworth’s forward, the . plank from cut thickness was stratum of equal By'this operation the in- surface, but smooth plank, removing leaving of of the equalities machinery board. The and, Woodworth’s,' different principle consequently, different. result-was et al. v. Biske invention is an of Norcross Hill’s says, improvement machine, “renders of or capable reducing planing its an to thickness He equal throughout length.” board says, or machine of Hill’s board capable reducing side a side, or from such stratum or on one removing layer thickness,” this wood an not make the did board uniform thickness. cut,' The amended contains which planes rotatory to surface of the an plank; the planed unplaned rest, bar a fixed is at distance from the adjustable cutting planes this rest were planes; rotating bar action so connected frame as move separate together vertically is borne frame, with downwards two weight; bars, one before and other behind the planes, rotating on the face of cut them,'to cause its the.plank opposite face, in its of whatever progress thickness and however in contact with rest bar F. warped, pass One of the said bars is termed a B",and the distance platform between to the the rest bar isF, variable arid self-adjusting "the before it is varying and. planed, n other, called or a horizontal bar G, throat-piece F, same distance from the rest bar as the line the cutting action of the to act on the face rotating planes, which has been ensure contact of planed, opposite face rest bar F. Norcross I claim as is, what invention' the combina- says, my E, tion of and the F, rest with me- rotatory cylinder chanism, can be moved or freely down, two the bed, sirnultaneously B, B independently platform device, in the manner and for any analogous substantially an equal thickness through- out its all as length, specified.” hereinbefore claim I also the above-described improvement, making concave,, the underside of rest combination with so ex- B, F, under the it to the tending part rest applying thereof, cave cause the board, iir across the passes rest, bent, awith concave surface presented and rotatory cutter operation planing cylinder,-substantially as specified.” seems to be organization machinery prin- that of Woodworth’s, same result. If ciple produces ,on the board, concave surface of which the cutters operate, made, other has improvement, slight change be an oil would no to use give defendants a license. without right The difference be this. between-the machines appears *17 et al. ITisk'e or bed Woodworth’s are station- plate planes rotating roller frame, and the or device the main on analogous ary is movable of the planed, that face toward plank thickness bed to suit the varying plank. the plate bars, are machine, two Norcross substituted for the While the one and instead which acts rollers; on making movable, is suit the ness before thick- varying planed, is fixed main frame' plank, permanently bed, termed him the and the rotating planes plate frame, in a connected and to- bar, are F, together separate rest gether down, themselves to the inequal- move adapt in the thickness plank. ities movable, of his Norcross has made part, machinery and that fixed; which movable in the Woodworth in the changes,.and ence satisfy machine, he has made These permanent. is the differ- the reversal Woodworth’s models, on the in their structure. A cast of will eye of the truth of this a machinist representation. below, above or operates Whether cutting cylinder can be of no a nor laid, importance; bench which varies to roller suit difference material whether is the the variable of the the or the con- plank, bench, planing cylinder, shall be elevated depress- nected with permanently These dif-' devices, the same object. though ed accomplish the same form, ferent produce principle, effect. and that the is an decree of the I think there infringement, should be reversed. Circuit Court
Order. to be heard on of the re- came on This cause transcript the United States for Circuit Court of Dis- from the of cord counsel. On Massachusetts, and was argued by trict ordered, here decreed whereof, is now adjudged,-and sideration said Circuit Court in decree of the this court, that the be, affirmed, -costs. cause and the same hereby,