135 F. 363 | U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois | 1903
Complainant files his bill herein for an injunction to restrain infringement of letters patent No. 644,-464, for an artificial limb suspender, and for an accounting. Defendant denies infringement and the validity of complainant’s patent under the prior art, and cites a large number of alleged anticipating patents. The patent in suit has four claims. In brief, it covers a device whereby an artificial limb, consisting of a thigh and leg section, having a knee joint, may be supported and operated by the same suspender in such manner as to enable the wearer to control the action of the two sections by body or shoulder movements, without causing the suspender to saw back and forth upon the shoulder to any objectionable extent. The fact that 23 patents are cited in the prior art tends to show that artificial limbs have been the subject of much consideration by those engaged in useful invention. The cases cited cover all the principles claimed for the patent in suit in detail. The patent is for a combination.
The intense desire of maimed persons to supply the loss of a limb, and the keen satisfaction with which every approach to nature in the operation of an artificial leg, however slight, is received by those unfortunate enough to require such aid, will warrant the court in taking into account very slight advances on the prior art. An examination of a few of the patents cited by defendant will suffice to show what has been done in this art, so far as is decisive of the questions now presented. In the Bly patent, No. 23,656, the leg is supported and adapted by one suspender in such a manner as to permit of the raising of the leg by means of a shoulder movement. This is accomplished by means of an elastic webbing attached to the thigh section. The suspender is so constructed as not to yield to the movements of the strain upon the elastic webbing. There is no sliding movement of the supporting and controlling strap. Its only similarity to complainant’s device is the “one suspender” and its response to shoulder movements. Its methods of operation are very different from those in the patent in suit. The Reichenbach patent, No. 41,238, covers a device for an artificial leg, in which the operating cord is fixed to a waist belt held in place by a shoulder strap. The cord passes around the pulley, which is located in the kneecap.
Thus it will be seen that the combination of a leg holder and controller in one suspender is not new. It is also evident that the use of loops and pulleys in connection with the operation of the suspender, and the operating cord to effect the control of the lower section of the leg, is old. It is also apparent that devices calculated to enable the wearer to direct the movement of the lower section of the leg by shoulder or chest action have been long before the public. The only change brought about by Rowley consists in the adjustment of the suspender to the lower section of the leg, and the arrangement of certain guides placed on the upper section. His patent is called “an artificial limb suspender.” His claims include the two leg sections as well. The defendant’s device is almost iden
The defendant relies mainly upon the prior art as a defense. While th.e patent in suit is greatly narrowed by anticipation, I am of the opinion that in the combination of the operating cord with the sliding loop, and the sliding connection of the flexible straps which move the lower section with the operating cord, and the arrangement of the guides upon the upper section of the leg, complainant has made a slight advance upon the prior art, and the patent in suit is therefore sustained. The pulleys of defendant’s device are the equivalents of complainant’s sliding loop. There can be no doubt that, if the patent in suit is valid, defendant infringes.
Solicitor for complainant may prepare a decree in accordance herewith.