Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, as assignee of letters patent No. 222,707, dated December 16,1879, and No. 212,197, dated June 7,1881, issued to. Edgar A. Wright, for certain new and useful-improvements in wheeled cultivators, brought this suit against the appellants, who were the defendants in the court below, for the alleged infringement thereof.

The defences made in that court were that Wright was not the first and original inventor of the improvements described in the patents'; that the same were shown and described in previous devices.and letters patent, set forth in the answer; that the'invention shown in each of the patents in suit is identical; that in each the' supposed improvements relate to a spring and its attachments ;• that the function and operation of the parts are exactly the same in each; that one or both of the letters patent in controversy were issued without authority of law, and therefore void ; that in view of the state of the art at the date of the alleged improvements of Wright, the letters patent granted to him did not exhibit any patentable invention, and for that reason are invalid ; that the defendants were not engaged in the manufacture pf cultivators, but have *188 sold cultivators manufactured by P. P. Mast & Co., of Springfield, Ohio, constructed under and in accordance with various letters patent owned by" that company; that they sold the cultivators of this company without notice or reason to suppose that they were an infringement of the patents of Wright, and that they do not, in fact, infringe the same.

The class of cultivators to which the Wright patents in question relate’ are of the ordinary character of wheeled, straddled-row cultivators, having vertical swinging beams, or drag.bars, to carry the shovels or plows, suspended from an arch or frame, mounted on two wheels, a tongue fastened to the frame and beams connected with the horizontal portions of the arch, which serves as an axle for the wheels, and surrounding the axle on each side a pipe box, to which the beam is secured, the pipe box revolving on the axle, and the beain carrying the shovels adjusted so as to swing up or doAvn with the pipe box, according to the direction.in which it is turned.

The patented device consists of a round steel rod, or wire spring, having at its fixed end a coil attached to the.swinging beam, or plow bars, and extending from the coil a slightly curved arm, the outer end of which terminates in a bend or shoulder, from which .the rod continues to form a short arm ■terminating in a sharp bend, or curl, at the free end of the spring. This spring is so adjusted that the outer or free end thereof bears against the under side of an adjustable grooved roller, fixed upon an outwardly extending arm upon the upright portion of the axle. , This spring, with its adjustment, is intended to have a duplex action, covering the double effect, of either raising or depressing the beams carrying the shovels. The curvature of the spring is such that as it moves along the groove of the roller it presses against the latter at different points of its periphery, and thereby the direction of its action is shifted or changed, as the position of the swinging beam is changed. Such changes in the direction of its action will assist in drawing or pulling the beam upwards in a vertical direction, giving it increased leverage as the spring is moved forward in its bearings on the roller.

In his original application, filed May 23, 1879, Wright fully *189 described his improved device for use in connection with cultivators and claimed for it, not only its lifting and depressing action, but also its lifting power, which increased as the beams were raised.

An interference with- other pending applications being anticipated as to the broad claims of the invention, the application was divided, on November 12, 1879, for the purpose of obtaining one patent for the lifting and depressing effect of the spring on the beams, and another for the lifting power of the spring, increasing as the beams rise, the latter being sought upon the original application, while the former was based upon the divisional application of November 12, 1879. Patent No. 222,767, for the double effect or duplex action of the improved spring, was granted on December 16, 1879, and thereafter on June 7, 1881, patent No. 242,497, for the single effect of increased lifting force in raising the plow beams, was granted, after interference had been disposed of.

The court below sustained the validity of both patents, and held that the defendants infringed the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth claims of patent No. 222,767, and the first, seóond, third, and fourth claims of the patent granted June 7, 1881, (No. 242,497). The complainant waiving an accounting for profits and damages, a final decree was entered, enjoining the defendants from making, using, or selling to others to be used, cultivators constructed and operated in the manner and upon the principle described in the letters patent in controversy. Prom this decree the present appeal is prosecuted.

:The appellants assign numerous errors, which need not be Separately noticed and considered, as they are embraced in the general proposition that the court erred in holding that the patents sued on were valid, and that the cultivators sold by the defendants infringed the same..

In the specification, forming part of the letters patent 222,767, issued December 16, 1879, under the divided application filed November 12, 1879, the patentee states:

“ The object of my invention is to give the operator mechanical assistance in raising and lowering the plows without inter- ■ fering with their usual action and movement, to prevent the *190 plows from rising out of the ground accidentally, and to limit their descent; and to this end the invention consists in a spring which serves the double purpose of lifting or holding down the plows at will, as may be required; in so constructing and applying a spring that it exerts a lifting action on the plow only when the latter is raised above its usual operative position ; in so constructing and applying a spring that it limits the descent of the plow; also, in details of minor importance, hereinafter described.

“In carrying out my invention the one spring may be adapted to serve all or either one or more of the offices above enumerated, and may bo modified in its form, construction, and arrangement, as desired, provided its mode of action is retained.”

It further stated that the improved springs may be attached to either the plows, as shown in figures 1 and 2, or to the axle, as shown in figure 3, on the opposite page.

Tbe improvements are described in the specification as follows :

“ As shown in Jigs. 2 and 3, each spring consists of a round steel rod or wire having at the fixed end a coil, a, and extending from the coil a long slightly-curved arm, 1), the outer end of which terminates in a sharp bend or shoulder, o, from which the rod continues to form a short arm, if, the end of which has a sharp bend or curl, e, as represented in Figs. 2 and 3.

“'When'the spring is to be applied to the plow beam, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, I first provide the upright portion of the axle with an outwardly-extending arm or rod, E, carrying a laterally-adjustable grooved roller, F, to serve as a bearing for the free end of the spring. The coiled end of the spring is then seated in a metal bearing-plate, G, which is secured rigidly but adjustably to the beam by means of a bolt, II, as shown, the free end of the sprung being at the same time seated against the under side of the roller, and the parts so adjusted that when the beam is in its lowermost position the extreme end e. of the spring will bear against the front of the roller, and the spring be under a strong tension.

“ When the beam and its shovels are down in an operative position, so that the shovels enter the ground, the portion d

*191

Additional Information