NASHUA LOCK ,CO. V. NORWICH LOCK MANUF'G CO.
87
LOCK
Co.v.
NORWICH LOCK MANU:r'G
Co.
(Oircuit Oourt. D. Oonnecticut. September 2,1887.) PATENTS :lrOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT.
In letters patent No. 327.820, issued to Emery Parker, October 6, 1885, for an improved door-knob attachment, each knob had an independent sbaft. 'One sliaft. at its free end, had a shoulder. and was inse,rted in a hollow shank on the other shaft, confol'ming in shape to the. spindle, except that on one side,was an enlargement to allow the insertion of the spindle obliquely past a pin: projecting inwardly from the side of the Ilhank opposite the enlargement. .!J'he pin interlocked with the shoulder on. elevatmg the knob. In letter!lp8tent .No. granted to Charles H. Beebe. May 26, 1885, the spindle, which at one qr bOth ends was provided with a locking hook. was inserted in the knob-neck, one side of whICh was 'enlarged so as to allow the spindle to pass a locking-hook on the enlarged side of the neck. Elevation of theknoh interlocked the hooks. Held, in view of the state of the art, that the patent is limited to a device in which the enlargement is opposite the Jilin, and that the patent is no infringe!llent. , "
,
Wm. Edgar Simonds; for plaintiff. Oha:fleB E. MitcheU,for defendant.
J. This is a bill' in equity based upon the allEll?;ed infringe1;Dent of the, first, second, third, and fifth claims of letters patent No. 327!,820"isilued to Emery Parker, Octo,ber 6,: 1$85, for l1on, improved door-knob attachment. The defendant manufactures door-knobs under to Charles H. Beebe, May 26,1885. letters ;The oldform of Gonnectiqg door-knobs to each other was by fasten,ing :tb.etwo.knQh sbanksto,the.connecting spindle by side sci'ews.' Letters 'Were issued December 12, 1882. to Milton C. Niles, for door'knob; shanks, which were connected together upon a new principle. The shaft upon which the two knobs were mounted was divided into two ".An aperttirewas madeinthe side orona of the shanks, which was:a.tupular onei thein.n,er end of the opposite shank was made a lit·smaller than its fellow, so that it would enter the latter,and was , provided with a short pin .adapted to enter .the. aperture. Preferably, of the shank which contained the lugw:as oval shaped, so that the .it could be inserted, when held at an angle, into the other shank far '. ,Permit the pin to enter the aperture, and then could be brought , irito)ine·with its fetiow; 'n1e specification also says, and it drawing shows, that that side of the sbank which is .opposite the pin could also be cut down slightly, so as ,to present the appearance of ,a rabbet,leaving enough of the shank to enter and hold in the end of tM opposite shankwhen the pin engages in the aperture. This was the better method of uniting the two shanks. The specification also shows that, foradditionalsecririty, another lug could be made on the outside of one shank, which would enter intoae corresponding notch on the edge of the inner end of the other shank. The principle of the device was that each knob had an independent shaft or spindle, and thllt the two shafta were fast-, enedtogether by means ofa lug upon one,end.ofone shaft interl9cking
tle
j
88
FEDERAL REPORTER.
with an aperture or shoulder upon the end of the other"shaft, the smaller shaft entering the larger one when inserted angularly. . The specification of the Parker patent describes the construction of so much of his device as is involved in the present controversy, as follows: "The knob, b, is fast to one end of the spindle, and may be made integral withit, if desired, and the opposite end of the spindle preferably has on one bevel, aI, and also near this end one or more openings, a2· that may be holes drilled thr0l!gh the spindle, as shown, or. mere indentations made in any convenient way, so long as each affords a shoulder that serves as a llleans of engaging a lug on the shank of thebther knob. This latter knob,. C, . has a hollow shank, d, the central opening, d I , in which conforms to thespilldle in outline and size in cross-section. at the end of the shank, where the opening has. an enlargement, d 2, on one f;'lide. On the side' of the opening, within the shank. and opposite ,the enlargement, d 2 · an illward projecting pin, d 3, is secured or formed on the wall of the opening. In Figs. 1 and 2 therelativeposition of these parts is illustrated. and the method of attaching the knob, c, to the shank is as follows: The spindle having been thrust through the hub of a lock or latch froID one side. the removable knob, c, is held in the obliqne position indicated by the dotted outline, and placed upon the end of the spindle, the enlargement, d 2, affording the spindle room to enter past the pin, d 3, until opposite an opening, {J,2. in the spindle, and into which the pin is slipped by moving the knob, c. until its axis is in line with that of the spindle. II< * II< Inorderto make a close fit between the parts, the inner end of the shank on the side'opposite to that bearing the lug has a rounded surface, d 4 , and the lug. d 3; is also slightly beveled on the back side, to enable the parts to more readily press each other, and come to a firm bearing." The claims which are said to be infringed are as follows: "(1) .A. knob with a connected spindle. the latter having near its free end an engaging sboulder or opening, in combination with a removable knob having a shank with a spindle-socket, and an inward projecting lug or pin within the socket. the latter having an enlargement opposite the lug, all substantially as described, "(2) In combination with a knob and connected spindle having the engaging shoulder 01" opening. a removable knob hav,ing a shank with a spindle socket, a rounded end on the shank, an engaging lug within the socket, and an enlargement opposite the lug; all substantially as described. "(3) In combination with a knob and connected spindle having the engaging shoulder or opening and a beveled end, a removable knob having a shank with a spindle-socket, an engaging lug within the socket, and an enlargement of the socket, all s!lbstantially as described." "(5) In combination with a lock-hub, baving a spindle hole, a spindle adapted to fit loosely within said hole, and bearing near its free end an engaging· shoulder or opening, and a removable knob having a shank with a spindle-socket, and an engaging shoulder within the socket; whereby the said spindle an'd knob may be removably connect,ed to each.other,aRd the rose Or like means for boldingsaid knob and .spindle in alignment with each other, as described." The Parker device adopts the principle of the Niles attachment, and unites the two shafts by inserting the ena. of the spindle into the hollow shaft of the spindle-socket, dne being held in an oblique position until the entrance is effected, and locks Hem together by the slipping of Ii :tJin in the spindle-socket into a corresponding opening in the spindle.
OTT V. BARTH.
89
If any inventive genius was called into exercise in a modification of the mechanical means which employ the simple principle which Nile§ introduced, the patent for such modification must be strictly confined to those details of construction which were the result of invention. The Parker device was a more simple and I economical one than the Niles attachment, but the only thing which cOllld make it patentable was the method of construction of the hollow shank, by which the full-sized spindle was permitted easily to enter the shank, and. pass beyond the pin in its side, and which consisted in the enlargement or cut-away portion at the end of the hollow shank opposite the pin. If the pin was to be in the 'hollow shank, there must naturally be an enlargement at the end of the opening, the only question being as to the place of the enlargement, so that it cannot be thnt the claims include any enlargement of the spindle. The Parker device required that the full-sized spindle should pass beyond the pin, and then be. made to engage with it, and a cut-away portion of the shank opposite the pin was a convenient way of effecting the desired method of construction. The patent is limited to a device in which the enlargement is opposite the pin. The Beebe device is a simple one. Its spindle is provided at one or both ends with a locking hook, and its knob necks have at their free ends a locking hook, which, by elevating the knob end of said neck or ,necks is slipped over the spindle hook. The knob neck, on .the side containing its locking hook, is enlarged, which enlargement permits the entrance of the spindle hook. There is no infringement, and the bill is dismissed.
OTT '/I. BARTH.
(Circuit (Jourt, N. D. Illinois. July 5, 1887.) PATENTS FOB INVENTIONS-IMPROVEMENTS IN SOFA BEDSTEADS-INFRINGEMENT.
The second .claim of a patent issued to William Ott, on the twenty-third January, 1887, for an "improvement in sofa bedsteads," which is as follows: "In combination with the sections, A and B, the folding rods, F, F, and head· boards, ,D and E, supporting .the latter when extended to sustain the bolster, substantially as setforth:" held not to be infringed by a device which makes the folding rods rest upon the end-pieces of the lounge-frame, instead of upon head-boards, which are dispensed with. .
O. P. Jacobs and Dyrenforth « Dyrenforth, for complainant. William Zimmerman, fOf defendant. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill in equity for an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of a patent issued to the complainant on the twenty-third day of January, 1877, for an "improvement in sofa bedsteads." The improvement covered by this patent has reference to that class of sofas or lounges which may be opened or extended