the former to the latter, and an independent pipe leading from the apartment to be protected to a chamber in which the valve is located, and sealed with sensitive solder at a place, in the apartment to be protected, in which the solder will be exposed to the heat generated by the fire. The independent pipe, however, is not used to convey compressed air to the valve chamber, but is used as an exhaust chamber, to suspend a diaphragm by a vacuum until the vacuum is destroyed, when the diaphragm is released and trips the valve; and the valve is held in a closed position, so that the water from the supply-pipe will not enter the distributing-pipes solely by the pressure of water between the two valves. This system differs as much from the system of Gray, in the mode of operation of the devices combined, as Gray's system does from Grinnell's. The independent air-pipe performs no office in holding the valve closed against the water-pressure, but that is accomplished solely by the pressure of the water upon the different parts of the valve. Compressed air is not employed in the air-pipe, because no pressure is necessary to act against the water-pressure in holding the valve closed. No locking or holding device to engage the valve and keep it closed is employed, because this is accomplished wholly and solely by the pressure of the water. It follows that the defendant does not infringe either of the claims c the patents in controversy. The bill is therefore dismissed.

GARDNER V. PRESCOTT et al.

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May 2, 1888.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-CARPET SWEEPERS.

Letters patent No. 186,895, issued January 30, 1877, to Alexander Stewart, for improvements in carpet sweepers, consist of the following claim: "The combination, with the frame of a carpet sweeper and its brush, the spindle, A, attached to the frame, and working longitudinally therein, to support or release the brush, and operated by the spring, D, and handle, E, substantially as set forth." Held, that the handle was one of the material elements of the combination, and that defendants' machine, in which they used the spring or its equivalent, but not the handle, was not an infringement.

In Equity. On bill for infringement of patent, brought by Henry Gardner against John W. Prescott et al.

W. A. Macleod, for complainant.

J. M. Van Fleet, for defendants.

COLT, J. In this suit the respondents are charged with the infringement of letters patent No. 186,895, issued January 30, 1877, to Alexander Stewart, for improvements in carpet sweepers. The invention consists in the use in a carpet sweeper of a fixed spindle, which supports the brush-roller, and to which a spring is attached, the function of the spring being to hold the spindle in place, and to allow it to be drawn back so as to free the brush-roller. The patentee disclaims "all devices

in which the spindle revolves with the brush, and is removable from the frame with it, such devices in various forms being common and well known." The claim is as follows:

"The combination, with the frame of a carpet sweeper and its brush, the spindle, A, attached to the frame, and working longitudinally therein, to support or release the brush, and operated by the spring, D, and handle, E, substantially as set forth."

In view of the state of the art, it must be admitted that the scope of this invention is very narrow. It will be observed that the handle, E, by which the spring is operated, is made one of the elements of the claim. In defendants' machine they use a spring or its equivalent, but not the handle. Unless we can broaden the claim of the patent so as to leave out the handle as a part of the combination, it is clear that the defendants do not infringe. This cannot be done, because it is apparent from the drawings and specification that the handle was one of the material elements of the patented combination. Nor can it be said that the spring in defendants' device is the equivalent of the spring and handle of the Stewart sweeper. The spring in each device may be made to serve the double purpose of handle and spring, but that does not make the defendants' spring the equivalent of a spring with a handle. Stewart chose to have the handle distinct from the spring, and he describes such handle in his patent, and makes it an element of his claim.

Without entering into the other defenses, I think for the reasons stated that the defense of non-infringement is well taken, and that the bill should be dismissed.

SIMONDS COUNTER MACHINERY Co. v. YOUNG et al.

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May 3, 1888.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-MOULDING SHOE STIFFENERS. Patent No. 292,514, granted January 29, 1884, to N. J. Simonds, for improvements in moulding stiffeners for boots or shoes. the specification of which shows that the important improvement covered by the patent is the production of a counter with converging front ends, or with a widened center and contracted front, by means of two pairs of moulds, is not infringed by defendants' machine, (under patent No. 350,907, granted to William J. Young,) in which two sets of dies are used,-one to partially shape the blank at its forward ends, and the other to finish it by moulding the rear portions, but in which there is no converging of the front ends of the counter.

In Equity. Suit for infringement of patent.
W. A. Macleod, for complainant.

J. E. Maynadier, for defendants.

COLT, J. This suit is brought for the alleged infringement of the first claim of letters patent No. 292,514, granted January 29, 1884, to N. J. Simonds, for improvements in moulding stiffeners for boots or shoes. Stiffeners are placed around the heel of a boot or shoe, and the specifi

cation says the invention consists both in the mechanical devices employed, and in the method or process by which the improvement is carried into effect. The first claim is for the method or process, and reads as follows:

"The herein-described method of moulding stiffeners, the same consisting in first subjecting them to pressure in moulds adapted to act upon and compress the forward portion thereof, and then repeating such moulding in dies adapted to mould the rear portion, and to set the stiffener in form with converging front ends, substantially as specified."

The patent describes two pairs of moulds by which a counter or stiffener may be made with converging front ends. A careful examination of the whole specification shows that the important improvement covered by the patent was the production of a counter with converging front ends, or with a widened center and contracted front, by means of two pairs of moulds. The specification says:

"A well moulded and formed stiffener is widest at a point about midway between the apex of the heel and the extreme front, as shown in the stiffener in position in the moulds in Fig. 10, and, as it is impossible to impart this form in a single pair of solid moulds, many kinds of hinged female moulds which could be closed laterally upon the stiffener when in place on the male mould have been devised and patented, as also expanding male moulds, with devices to separate or open the same when in position within the stiffener and female mould, a patent having been granted to me for such expanding mould; but all such hinged, sectional, or expanding moulds are obnoxious to the objection that, wherever there is a joint or line between two parts of either a male or female mould, there will be found a corresponding ridge upon the surface of the moulded stiffener. Besides this objection in the product, the divers devices requisite to the actuating of such livided moulds are highly objectionable, as they are not only liable to be out of order, but seriously interfere with the work of the operator. With my moulds and method Í entirely obviate all these difficulties, * * * and I am enabled, with solid moulds, to mould stiffeners with a widened center and contracted front, which is now regarded by the trade as an indispensable form or contour, which form has only been hitherto obtained in moulded stiffeners by means of sectional male or female moulds, or both."

The method covered by the patent in suit is manifestly limited to the art of moulding counters with converging front ends; and to read this feature out of the first claim, and so broaden it as to make it cover a method or process where this feature is absent, would be unwarranted, and contrary to the intent of the patentee.

The defendants' machine is the same as that described in letters patent No. 350,907, granted to William J. Young. And while the defendant uses two sets of dies, -one to partially shape the blank at its forward ends, and the other to finish it by moulding the rear portions thereof,— yet, as there is no converging of the front ends of the counter, I do not think it can be said that he uses the method or process described in the first claim of the Simonds patent. This is the chief defense relied upon in this case; and, as it seems to me well taken, it becomes unnecessary to consider the other questions which were raised at the hearing. The bill should be dismissed, with costs; and it is so ordered.

BALDWIN v. T. G. CONWAY Co., Limited, et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. July 10, 1888.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS

PATENTABILITY--INFRINGEMENT-POLICE NIPPERS. Letters patent No. 152,182, issued January 7, 1874, to Alexander P. Baldwin, for "improvements in police nippers," substituting smooth, straight bars for the links of the chain in the nippers ordinarily used prior thereto, which pass through the fingers of the officer's hand, so that in twisting the chain to adapt the nippers to prisoners having small hands or wrists, it will not pinch or injure the officer's fingers, are not invalid for want of novelty, and are infringed by letters patent issued May 6, 1884, to Edward D. Bean, for nippers having the same device of smooth, straight bars for passing between the fingers, but differing therefrom in providing in the handle or cross-bar at one end of the chain a recess to receive the handle on the other end, thus interlocking them.

Bill in Equity. Infringement of letters patent.

G. G. Frelinghuysen, for complainant.

John H. Kitchen, for defendants.

WALLACE, J. Infringement is alleged of letters patent No. 152,182, dated July 7, 1874, granted to Alexander P. Baldwin, for "improvements in police nippers," an article which is a substitute for the ordinary handcuff used by police officers and others to secure prisoners. The invention consists essentially of a flexible band or chain, having levers adapted for twisting the chain, so as to reduce the area of the loop formed when the levers are held in the hand, and thus increase the pressure upon the wrist of the prisoner; the levers, being provided with a rigid central bar for preventing injury to the hand of the officer using the nippers. The advantages of the improvement over the nippers pre- · viously in use, and the details of construction, are thus described in the patent:

"In constructing police nippers it is customary to take a small chain of suitable length, and attach to each end of it a cross-bar similar to those used on chain halters and trace chains. When nippers thus made are used, the links of the chain are brought between the fingers of the policeman, and tend to hurt the fingers more or less, thus preventing his keeping as firm a hold as is necessary; and this is increased when it becomes necessary to twist the chain, and is generally the case more or less, in order to adapt the nippers to prisoners having small hands or wrists. To obviate this difficulty I construct the nippers as shown in the drawing. As there shown, I make the cross-bar, B, of the usual form; but instead of forming an eye at its center for attaching the chain, C, I form it at a short bar, D, projecting at right angles from its inner side, and connect the chain to the end of this cross-bar, B, as shown in the drawing. It will be seen that with this improvement the liability of injury of the hand or fingers of the officer is obviated, as in using it the smooth, straight bars, D, are brought between the fingers when grasping the crossbar, B, as is the custom in using them; and if it be necessary to twist the chain, the twisting must necessarily take place beyond the end of the bars, D, thus leaving the latter straight and smooth between the fingers."

The defendants are manufacturers of police nippers made conformably to a patent granted May 6, 1884, to Edward Davis Bean. It is entirely

520

clear that these nippers embody the device of the complainant's patent; but the cross-bar or handle at one end of the chain is provided with a recess which receives the handle at the other end of the chain, whereby the handles are interlocked. It may be that Bean's device is an improvement upon the device of the complainant's patent, which is the proper subject of a patent; but, however this may be, it is certainly an infringement of the patent.

The defense relied upon is want of patentable novelty in the device of the complainant's patent. The devices which were well known prior to the date of Baldwin's invention are illustrated by two exhibits, which are referred to in the proofs as "Exhibit E" and "Exhibit Tower's Catalogue." In Exhibit E the chain is attached to the handle by a link longer and larger than the remaining links of the chain, such link passing through a bulge or projection upon the under side of the cross-bar forming the handle, projecting outwardly about a quarter of an inch. In the Exhibit Tower's Catalogue the cross-bar or handle has a similar but less decided projection upon the under side, and the link connecting the chain with the handle is longer than the link in Exhibit E, and is formed with more constrictive sides. Both exhibits show a nipper in which the action of the link between the fingers is one of more or less play, and is likely to pinch and injure the fingers of the person using it. One of the witnesses, a police officer, in describing the use of such nippers, testifies that on one occasion the hand of the prisoner whom he had arrested was covered with blood, and he was arraigned at the complaint of a person who supposed that he had cruelly used the prisoner; but it turned out that the officer was the only person injured, and the nippers had taken a piece out of his fingers where the chain had caught, and the prisoner's wrist had thereby become covered with blood. This witness and others testify that it was common to have the fingers lacerated by the chain in using the nippers. Nevertheless, such nippers were used from 1866 to 1872, before the introduction of the patented article, and were used extensively; and the circumstance that no one seems to have thought of the apparently simple change in the form of the handle made by Baldwin, together with the immediate recognition of its utility as soon as his device was introduced, attest that what he did was not such an obvious thing as it may now seem, and not destitute of the fertility of thought which is entitled to rank as invention. The defendants have introduced a patent granted August 10, 1869, to Phillips, as also illusThe police nippers of this patent betrating the prior state of the art. long to a different class from those in controversy, and this exhibit is of no appreciable value upon the question of patentable novelty. A decree is ordered for the complainant.