Maynadier v. Tenney. JAMES E. MAYNADIER, TRUSTEE, VS. DANIEL W. TENNEY ET AL. IN EQUITY. The complainant's patent was for a machine for cutting the soles of shoes by means of a die cutter. This he accomplished by mounting the die cutter upon a shaft, which, during the operation of cutting, is bolted, and after the cut is made, the die is lifted and unbolted, and then, by means of a rack and pinion at the top of the shaft, is made to perform a half revolution, thus reversing the ends of the cutting die, and then it descends, renewing the cutting operation, and so on continuously. One of the main features of the patented combination was the shaft, upon which, as a centre, the cutting die revolved. The defendants dispensed with the shaft, and substituted therefor a sleeve, by means of which the cutting die rotated, but the reciprocating motion was effected by the same operation, and the result accomplished was the same as in complainant's machine: Held, that the defendants infringed complainant's patent. (Before SHEPLEY, J., District of Massachusetts, May, 1877.) SHEPLEY, J. The patent of complainants must be considered, upon the evidence in this record, as the first one in the class of machines to which the invention relates. The patent is for a machine for cutting the soles of shoes by means of a die cutter, which has a reciprocating motion, making after each cut a half revolution in order to present the widest extremity of the material to be cut opposite the narrowest extremity at the last cutting operation. This is accomplished by mounting the die cutter upon a shaft, which, during the operation of cutting, is bolted, and after the cut is made, the die is lifted and unbolted, and then, by means of a rack and pinion at the top of the shaft, is made to perform a half revolution, thus reversing the ends of the cutting die, and then it descends, renewing the cutting operation, and so on continuously. One of the main features of the combination was this shaft, upon which, as a centre, the cutting die revolved. Maynadier v. Tenney. Under these circumstances, this being the first machine, it was competent for any person to do three things. He might, in the first place, dispensing with one of the elements of that combination in its precise form, introduce into it a known equivalent-equivalent not in the sense of being a shaft, for instance, but equivalent in the sense that, in that combination, it was the use of another well-known device, performing the same operation in the same way. That would be a naked infringement. It was competent, secondly, for a person to make the change in the machine by introducing, in the place of any one of the elements of that combination, another device, not known before as an equivalent device; that would not be an infringement under the decisions of the Supreme Court, which say it is not an infringement where the device substituted was not a known equivalent at the date of the patent. It was competent, in the third place, for a party desiring to change the features of the machine, to substitute for one of the elements in the combination, features which should accom. plish the same result by the same mode of operation that this element accomplished, and which, in addition to it, should perform some other function which was novel and useful. That, without being a naked infringement, would be the subject of a patent for an improvement, in consequence of the additional new features which it introduced, but would still be subject to the original patent, having embodied in it that which. was novel and useful in the original combination. This last mode of modifying the machine, is the mode which it appears clearly to the court, upon inspection, has been resorted to in the defendants' patent. The shaft, as a shaft, although described as one of the elements, and as an essential element in the combination of all the claims in the complainant's patent, does not exist as a shaft in the defendants' device; but the defendants have substituted for that shaft a sleeve, by means of which the cutting die rotates, dispensing with the shaft, but still effecting the reciprocating motion, the reversed motion of the cutting die, by the same operation, and substantially accomplishing the same thing in the result of the machine; but it also accomplishes another result. It being obvious, upon inspection of this machine, that, Maynadier v. Tenney. when the cutting die revolved upon a shaft, the cutting die was a prolonged one, as long as the sole of the shoe, so that, when the material to be cut was of unequal density or unequal thickness, the strain would be greater upon one end of the die than upon the other, it being mounted upon merely a central shaft, the new element in the combination introduced in the defendants' machine allowed the pressure to come down upon this die upon both sides of the central shaft, and thus, in the operation, effected an improvement over the mode of operation in the Hatch & Churchill-the complainant's machine. While it had this improvement, which is a valuable improvement, in、 some respects, over that of the complainant, it still substantially, under the impression which the court has from inspection of the two machines, clearly embodied what there was new in the complainant's invention. It is true that the experts in this case say that this mode of reciprocating the cutting die is not an equivalent, is not the same thing as the shaft which is made an important feature in the complainant's combination; and to the eye of a mechanic, perhaps, looking at it merely with the eye of a constructing mechanic, this is a different thing, and so it is to the eye of the court a different thing; but whether it be a different thing mechanically in that way or not, when we consider whether it be an equivalent in the sense of the law, by applying the doctrine of equivalents to a combination which is the first inven. tion in a class of machines, and with the broader definition of the term " equivalents," as applied to such an invention, notwithstanding this testimony of the experts, it is clearly an equivalent in that sense. The decree, therefore, will be for the complainant. J. E. Maynadier, for the complainant. J. W. Hubbard, for the defendants. Miller and Peters Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul. THE MILLER AND PETERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. NAPOLEON DU BRUL. The presumption of law is that the Commissioner of Patents has done his duty in granting a reissue thoroughly, faithfully and properly, and the question is not open for re-examination, except on the ground of fraud. If there be any merit or utility in an invention, it entitles the inventor to a patent, although such merit or utility be slight, and the grant by the Patent Office is prima facie evidence of such merit or utility. Reissued letters patent No. 6,662, granted to F. C. Miller, September 28th, 1875, for improvement in cigar molds, held valid. (Before SWAYNE, J., Southern District of Ohio, May, 1877.) SWAYNE, J. This is a suit brought on reissued letters patent for improvement in cigar-molds, granted F. C. Miller, September 28th, 1875, as a reissue of letters patent originally granted same, October 13th, 1874. The bill charges the infringement of the first and second claims, which are as follows: "1. The series of cups, e, which are constructed with flanges e and attached to a suitable backing, substantially as and for the purposes specified. 2. The movable half mold, composed of a series of cups, e, which are constructed with the flanges and attached to a backing, in combination with the stationary half-mold, having a corresponding series of sockets, d', substantially as and for the purpose specified." The defences relied on are: 1. That the reissue is broader than the original, and not for the same invention. 2. Want of novelty. 3. Want of patentable invention. As to the validity of the reissue it is delegated, by the act of Congress upon the subject, to the Commissioner of Patents, carefully to examine the question whether the patentee is entitled to a reissue, and to decide according to the result of that examination. The presumption of law is, according to Miller and Peters Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul. the authorities, that the Commissioner has done his duty thoroughly, faithfully, and properly, and has arrived at a conclusion in accordance with his action. The question is not open for re-examination, except on the ground of fraud. Battin v. Taggert, 17 How., 84; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall., 796; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall., 516, and other cases. The presumption is, that everything is correct and valid touching the reissue. I have found nothing in this case sufficient to open up the question for re-examination. I need not remark further on the subject. On looking through the patents which have been introduced on the part of the defendant, and examining the models which show the invention, we find nothing that exactly anticipates said invention. In this connection it is proper to read a part of the specification: "The plungers or cups of the upper or movable half-mold are formed separately, and subsequently secured to the backing, while in the sockets in the lower or stationary half-mold, in order to obtain a perfect register between the cups and the sockets, heretofore the cups have been made of the same width, or nearly so, from top to bottom-that is to say, the width at the top at a particular point would be the same, or nearly so, as the width at the bottom at this same point, and the face of the backing to which they are attached, checked their further entrance into the sockets, by bringing up against the top of the socketboard. By reason of this construction of the cups, it was exceedingly difficult to secure the backing to it without injuring the cups or the surfaces of the sockets by forcing the cups too far into the socket, and, in case the cups were secured by gluing, either their backing would glue onto the top of the socket-board, or else it had to be withdrawn before the cups had been previously secured. To avoid these difficulties is the object of the first part of my invention, which consists in providing the plungers or cups with laterally projecting flanges, by means of which they are supported on the top of the socketpiece while in the sockets, so that the backing may be brought down upon them with any requisite force to secure them without danger of injuring the molds proper, and which also serve to form a space between their backing and the socket |