Page images
PDF
EPUB

B, are connected by side bars, C, O, in the ning gear, and this is accomplished by em. usual manner. D represents the body of ploying a pair of springs, a, a, which may the vehicle.

properly be termed sections of semielliptic “The body, D, is connected to the side springs. The springs are arranged to cross bars, C, C, by means of two springs, G, G, each other at the center of the cross bar, B, composed of one or more plates near each upon which the carriage body is placed, and end. These springs are fastened to the un their elevated or upper ends are permanently der side of the body, D, at opposite sides. secured at the opposite ends of said cross bars The springs then cross each other, and their by means of bolts and nuts, a. Each spring ends are pivoted or hinged in clips, I, I, is provided with a socket, c, at the crossing fastened to the opposite side bars, as shown. point, and through said sockets, which are

"By this construction and arrangement of thus brought in line with each other, an axis the springs, I secure length of springs and or pivot bolt, D, is passed. A nut, b, is apelasticity of motion, and at the same time plied to the screw-threaded projecting end of hanging the body low.

the bolt for securing the same in place. Each *"What I claim as new, and desire to se spring is generally formed of two or more cure by letters patent, is

leaves,-a long lower leaf and a shorter up“In combination with the side bars, C, C, per leaf,—this construction being resorted to and body, D, the springs, G, G, attached to the under side of the body at opposite sides, enable the socket, C, to be more readily form. then crossing each other, and connected to ed. the side bars on opposite sides, substantially The claims were as follows: as herein set forth."

“(1) The combination of two springs, each Second. No. 9,542, reissue, dated January composed of one or more leaves, and hinged 25, 1881, upon application filed November together at their crossing point, and pro27, 1880, being a reissue of patent No. 157, vided with an eye at one end to connect 430, to Tilton & Stivers, for springs for vehi. with the side sills of the running gear, and cles, dated December 4, 1874, upon applica at the other end connected with the cross tion filed November 25, 1874.

bar for supporting the body of the vehicle, The specification of the original patent substantially as described. read thus:

"(2) The two leaf springs, each provided "The object of the present invention is to with a socket at their crossing point, in comprovide springs designed especially for bug. bination with a pivot or axis bolt, substangies, carriages, and other light vehicles, tially as described. which shall obviate all rocking motion of “(3) The combination of two springs side the body supported thereon, and cause the by side, and connected together, with the latter to be always maintained in a bori side sills and cross bar, for supporting the zontal position when moving up or down, body in a horizontal position between the side or when in a stationary position.

sills, substantially as described. “The invention consists in the employment "(4) The re-enforcing and bearing plate, I, cf two independent crossed-leaf, metal having end flanges, in combination with the springs, the ends of which are rigidly se body-supporting bar and the connected cross cured to the opposite ends of the cross bar springs, substantially as described." supporting the vehicle body, each spring The specification was amended in the rebeing formed or provided with a socket, and issue by substituting "cross piece attached the two sockets meeting each other at the to the body," for "cross bar supporting the center of the body-supporting bar, so as to vehicle body," "the body-supporting bar," or enable an axis or pivot bolt to be passed "bar supporting the body"; and also by through both sockets for enabling the inserting after the word* "spring," in the springs to turn thereon when the body is line reading, "each spring being formed or elevated or depressed. The invention fur provided with a socket," the word “preferther consists in securing a bearing and re ably," and after the words "spring is," in the enforcing plate of metal to the under side of line reading, "each spring is provided with the body-supporting bar, said plate being pro a socket, c, at the crossing point," the word vided with pendent flanges at both ends, to "preferably." serve as bearing points for the ends of the The original claims were changed in the springs, in order to prevent any lateral move reissue by the substitution in the first claim ment of the same, and to serve, in connection of "cross piece attached to the body," for with fastening bolts, to securely hold the "cross bar for supporting the body"; and springs in place.

the word "cross piece" for "cross bar” in "It is well known that elliptic or semiellip the third claim; and omitting the word "and" tic springs, secured to the center of the cross after “re-enforcing," and the substitution of bar supporting a carriage body, will permit the "cross piece attached to the body" for the same to rock from side to side, which is the “body-supporting bar," in the fourth objectionable for various reasons.

claim; and a fifth claim was added as fol. I propose to maintain a buggy, carriage, lows: “(5) In combination with the body of and other vehicle body always in a horizon. a vehicle and the side sills or bars, the two tal position in respect to the springs and run springs crossing each other side by side and

attached to a cross piece, substantially as springs secured to the center of the cross bar described."

of the carriage body will permit the same to Third. No. 239,830, to C. W. Saladee for rock from side to side. It is objectivdable road wagon, dated April 5, 1881; application for various reasons.” It was proposed to tiled February 7, 1881. The claim is: “A remedy this by taking springs of the form spring platform consisting of flexion springs shown, which might be properly termed secarranged in pairs, the inner, heavier ends of tions of semielliptic springs, and arranging each pair being connected, side by side, to thein to cross each other on the center of the the central portion of the body or object sup cross bar upon which the body was placed, ported, and the flexion portion of each spring each spring being provided with a socket at curving downward from the center, and then the crossing point, and a pivot bolt passing upward to its connection with the frame, through both springs, secured by a nut, this all substantially as set forth."

coupling preventing them from moving inde It will be perceived that the third claim pendently of each other. In the first claim of the reissued Tilton patent includes, as a the words were used, “hinged together at necessary element, two springs side by side, their crossing point”; in the second claim, and connected together; the fourth claim in. “two leaf springs, each provided with a sockcludes the connected cross springs and the et at their crossing point”; in the third claim, re-enforcing plate, having end flanges; while "the combination of two springs side by side, the fifth claim is substantially the same as and connected together, with the side sills the single claim of the Timken patent. Both and cross bar, for supporting the body in a have the two springs crossing each other, horizontal position"; while the fourth claim though in the Timken claim these springs was for the re-enforcing plate and connected must be connected at the heavier ends at cross springs. the opposite side from which the light ones Appellee's contention that the connection of are connected with the side bar. It seems the crossed springs of the third and fourth clear that the fifth claim was intended to claims is a connection by means of the recover sectional cross springs without the ar enforcing plate and its flanges, which, the ticulated joint in the center, and it does cover specification says, were intended to serve as such springs, if the word "preferably," in bearing points for the ends of the springs, troduced for the first time in the reissue, is described in the fourth claim as a separate not an expansion of the invention described element in combination with the body-supin the original patent; but we cannot concur porting bar and the connected cross springs, with the learned circuit judge in his con requires no comment. clusion that the insertion of that word did The new fifth claim omits the crossing connot unduly expand the original, and so in. nection altogether, and covers matter recog. validate the reissue. The original patent nized as old in the original patent, and claims made no reference to an alternative construc 3 and 4, if broadly construed in connection tion with the pivot bolt omitted, while the with the new matter introduced in the speci. new matter nade the connection of claims fication, render the central connection non3 and 4 (which remained practically un essential, since it might be omitted, if prechanged in terms), if broadly construed, only ferred. There is no basis for the theory of a preferable mode. As the patent originally | inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and the stood, the connection of the cross springs was reissue cannot be sustained. an essential element of the claim; but, if As to the original patent, it should be obthe reissue were valid, the bolt coupling the served that if the bolt passing through the two springs together at their center, and sockets in that portion of the springs cenfoi m...g an articulated joint, would in effect trally under the body, and coupling them tobe eliminated. The application for reissue gether, as shown, were omitted, the result was not filed until November 27, 1880, wbile would be the Timken spring; and it involved the original patent was dated December 1, no invention on the part of Timken to dis1874, and the reissue was thus made by ex pense with that connecting link, thus leaving pansion to cover structures in public and the springs practically identical. It is true common use between those two dates.

that the Tilton patent, both original and reHuber v. Manufacturing Co., 148 U. S. 270, issue, showed the light ends of the springs 13 Sup. Ct. 603, is much in point. There one secured to the side bars by links or swinging Boyle obtained a patent for a sanitary closet, shackles, while the shackles were rigid in including, as essential element of the the Timken; but both these shackles were claim, a flushing chamber, and subsequently well known, and complainant cannot conapplied for a reissue for the purpose of elimi. tend that the difference is material. nating that chamber; but this, it was held, In short, the Tilton patent relates to a could not be done.

crossing spring with a pivot bolt at the interThe object of the original Tilton invention section. The Timken spring is the Tiltop was declared to be to provide carriages or spring with the pivot bolt omitted; but in other vehicles with springs to prevent the the defendants' spring the two sections do rocking motion of the body supported there. not cross each other, and cannoc have a plvot on, and it was stated in the specification: “It bolt at the intersection. is well known that elliptic or semielliptic Many different styles of cross springs ap

an

140

pear in the record, representing springs of ly these springs could be interchangeably all kinds and shapes,-springs placed longi. used for the springs shown in the Timken tudinally and transversely of the vehicle; patent, and it would require no invention to springs with different fastenings binding attach them. There was no novelty in the them together at the crossing point; single means of accomplishing the result. sweep and double sweep springs; springs of In Kenan's patent of September 13, 1870 wood and of steel; cross springs of rigid (No. 107,386), we find crossing springs coumetal; spring bars with semielliptic doubl pled at the crossing point by solid balls or sweep springs, etc. It is not disputed that blocks of India rubber. In Labaw's (No. 34,the side-bar buggy or wagon, known as the 5-19), February 23, 1962, and Hubbard's (No. "Brewster Side-Bar Vehicle," came into gen 12,890), May 15, 1835, the connection is eral use in 1873, and was made under a pat effected by a pivot bolt. In Cooper's patent granted to Wood, May 27, 1873 (No. 139, ent (No. 200,435), February 19, 1878, each 318), reissued August 18, 1874 (No. 6,018). spring is formed of two sections, lying The Wood invention consisted in altering a side by side; the inner end or heel of side-bar buggy baring downward, trans each section being secured to the wagon rerse springs over the axle, in which the body, but a little beyond its center, while ends of the side bars rest on the ends of the the outer ends are secured to the side bars. springs, by putting in upwardly-curved Catterson's English patent (No. 2,612), May springs transversely between the side bars 15, 1854, shows cross springs formed of two and the body of the buggy, the claim being: sections, lying side by side, pointing in oppo"A frame, consisting of the longitudinal site directions, provided at their ends with side bars, F, F, downwardly-bowed end thin, flexible, curved portions, and there springs, E, E, and upwardly-bowed metal shackled. springs, G, G, constructed, arranged, and ap The earliest patent in the record is the plied as and for the purpose described." In Manton English patent No. 4,092), dated the reissue the balf springs in reverse were July 18, 1817. This patent shows a rigid not a part of the combination, and the claim gear mounted on cross springs having their was, “The semielliptic springs, G, G, inter heavy ends "attached to the under side of posed between the side bars, F, F, and the the body at opposite sides, then crossing wagon body, all coinbined substantially as each other, and connected to the side bar on specified." The original and reissue were opposite sides." both held invalid by Judge Wallace in The specification states: "My improveBrewster v. Shuler, 37 Fed. 785. Reference ment in the application of springs to wheel was there made to the semielliptic, scroll. carriages consists in placing the springs ended springs which had previously been in. which are to support the body of the car. terposed between the side bars and the body riage in a transverse or cross position, so of a buggy belonging to a well-known class that the length of the springs will be in a used in carriages, and sold by dealers as direction from side to side of the carriage.. semielliptic springs, as appeared in the pat as represented by the drawings hereunto anent to George Groot of July 13, 1869 (one of nexed, and that each sprir shall be fixed. the patents in evidence here), for an im to the body or suspended part of the carprovement in carriage springs, which patent riage on one side thereof by one end of the relates to the fastening of semielliptic said spring, which spring shall extend crosssprings transversely under the body of the ways beneath the body of the carriage, and carriage to side springs by means of saddle be attached to the frame of the carriage on clips; and, there being nothing in the Wood the opposite side to that side on which the patent to indicate that a semielliptic spring other end of the same spring is fastened to of a special form was an element in the the body of the carriage. This is shown in claim, it was held that the claim specified Fig. 1, which is a view of part of a gig body one of any well-known form adapted to be and the axletree, to show the application of interposed between the side bars and the the springs. A is the axletree; B, B, blocks wagon body, and that, therefore, the patent fixed on the axletree to support the shafts, was void for prior public use of semielliptic, which, with their cross rail, C, C, form a scroll-ended springs, though the drawings

frame. Upon this frame the body, D, D, is showed springs without scroll ends.

placed. a, b, is one of the springs, and c, * The Steward patent of October 25, 1970, d, the other. Both springs are bolted or describes a semielliptic spring, whose ends otherwise firmly fastened to the under side are attached to the axle by means of two of the body, D, at their tbick ends, a and c; diagonal spring braces which pass from the the other ends, b and d, of the springs, are points of attachment to the semielliptic received in shackles, loops, or links, wbich spring diagonally past each other to points are suspended from the shafts or frame, near the journals of the axle, there to be and allow the ends, b and d, of the springs, secured by means of a sleeve and set screw, some play. The same figure also shows or in some other suitable manner. The clearly how the springs cross each other,

eavy ends are attached to the gear, and the but a sufficient interval must be left between Light ends to the semielliptic spring or spring the two springs, that they will not touch or bar on which the vehicle rests; but obvious rub against each other where they cross.

091.

12

The figure is taken at the bind part of the The Manton specification covers a larger gig, and similar cross springs may be ap field than that of Timken, but the two de. plied at the fore part. The springs are sus vices are strikingly similar. pended by the shackles, loops, or braces, in Passing to the question of prior use, the order that the ends of the springs may ex springs manufactured by Priest at Detroit, pand and contract—that is, advance to and Mich., show such anticipation of the alleged recede from each other-when the body rises invention in the three patents in suit as and falls by jolts and irregular motions. seems to us quite decisive. The learned cir

The thick ends, a and c, of the cuit judge, however, rejected the testimony springs, are fastened to a bar, G, G, on the of Priest as wholly unreliable; but in our ends of which bar irons, H, are fastened, view that testimony was so fully corroboratand they go beneath the body, D, D, of the ed by other witnesses and documentary evicarriage, and are firmly fastened thereto, so dence that we are constrained to arrive at as to fix the bar, G, firmly to the body. a different conclusion, whatever might be

In some cases the springs may be said of it, standing alone. fixed immediately to the body of the car The first of the Priest springs is known as riage,

and then, if there is suffi the “Meisner Spring." In 1872 or 1873, cient substance of wood in the body or boot, Priest manufactured a buggy for Dr. Meisor wherever the springs are to be fastened, ner, which had a body coupled to the side there will be no necessity for the bar, G; bars by double-sweep, sectional cross springs, but be it observed that the particular man rigidly secured to the buggy bottom at opner of attaching and affixing the springs in posite sides by bolts passing through their their places may be left to the discretion of thick ends; then curved downwardly from the workman, who must adapt the springs, the body, and up again in the direction of in respect to their dimensions, weight, the side bars, to which they were coupled strength, and mode of attachment, to their by swinging shackles or links. places, according to the particular kind of

The evidence of Priest and of one Rolfe, carriage to which they are to be applied, for then a dealer in carriages, was to the effect I confine my improvement in the application that in 1874 Priest built a side-bar buggy on of springs to wheel carriages to the placing the order of Rolfe, who had contracted with of such springs in a transverse direction

C. W. Prescott to furnish a Brewster buggy when one end of each spring is attached to for Lady Prescott; but, during its constructhe body of the carriage on one side (for in tion, Brewster's agent demanded a royalty, stance, the left-hand side), and the other end whereupon Priest used the Meisner spring, of the same spring is attached by a shackle substituting the Brewster rigid shackle for to the carriage or frame on the opposite side

the loose link. (for instance, on the right-hand side), the Rolfe testified that the buggy was made manner of which has been hereinbefore ex in September or October, and was painted plained. In all cases, the springs, being prior to December 1, 1874, and he produced fixed fast at one end, must be suspended by the bill for the painting, dated December 31 a shackle at the other end, to allow them

of that year; also, his invoice book, showplay to expand or contract.”

ing the buggy on hand January 1, 1875, as Fig. 1, omitting the frame formed by the well as entries afterwards of a buggy sold axletree, the shaft supports, and the cross

Sir George Prescott and of several other rail, is as follows:

buggies with Priest springs; also, bills of lading, dated March 25, 1875, from the Erie & North Shore Line, showing the consignment of the buggy to Lady Prescott, Strand Park, Herne Bay, Kent, England,-one for the shipment from Detroit to New York, and another for the transportation from New York to London, April 10th, by the steamer C. F. French; also, letter of C. W. Prescott, dated June 10, 1875, from Isenburst, Hawkhurst, Sussex, England, showing that the buggy had arrived, and ordering another for Sir George Prescott; and another letter of C. W. Prescott, without date, purporting to have been written from Lawrence, Kan., with reference to the second buggy. The testimony of Priest was sustained, not only by that of Rolfe, but of Rand, who packed and superintended the shipment of the buggy to England. Rolfe's invoice book showed the buggy sold to Sir George Prescott, August 13, 1875, and also a Priest buggy to Dr. Drake on October 23, 1875. That the first Prescott buggy was made and shipped as

contended Is satisfactorily made out, but the real question is as to the character of the springs upon it, and in respect of that Priest is corroborated by several witnesses.

Among the exhibits which Mr. Timken concedes, in his evidence, contain his invention, or are nearly the same as his springs, are the Matlock or Kierolf springs and the Kunkle Brothers' springs. The Kunkle springs were manufactured by one Ruple and sold to Kunkle Brothers in 1876 or the*spring of 1877, and the evidence tends to show that these springs were invented by Ruple in the latter part of 1875. He applied for a patent shortly after the allowance of the Timken patent, and his application was rejected, but the specification and drawing of this application are given in the record, and show clearly the invention claimed in this suit. The Kierolf springs were made during the summer or spring of 1877. Matlock identifies similar springs as made in 1877. We think counsel for appellants justified in saying that these and other springs exhibited were made in view of the reissued Wood patent embodied in the Brewster wagon. What was known as “Double-Sweep Concord Springs" were long enough to extend from the rear axle to the head block, and Brewster shortened these springs, and extended them across from side bar to side bar. Subsequent inventors took these same Concord springs, and, instead of shortening them, cut them in two in the middle, and crossed them past each other, exiending from the middle or one side of the buggy body to the cross bar on the opposite side.

Timken made his application October 27, 1877, and the evidence on his behalf as to when he made his invention, which we have carefully examined, fails to show that it was earlier than the other devices to which we have referred.

Appellee's argument seems to be that the Timken patent should be so construed as to cover a double-sweep, sectional spring, hav. ing the attaching ends connected to the bottom of the buggy or cross sills at any point between the side and the center, crossing the center, bending downwardly for a distance, and then upwardly to be attached to the side bar; having a thick end for attachment to the buggy bottom, and a thin end for attach. ment to the side-bar shackle, the curve be ing such as to allow the body to move up and down without expanding the side bar; but we do not understand this description to be within the terms of the patent, according to which the Timken invention consisted in the use of sectional springs arranged in pairs, side by side, and crossing each other, to couple the body to the gear. Now, that sectional springs can be used for coupling the body to the gear of the vehicle; that rigidity of spring can be obtained by making the conDections rigid; that the body could be bung either high or low by the proper sweep of the spring; that the form and sweep of the

springs, and various methods of using them as couplings between the gear and body, were well known,-the patents, exhibits, and proofs make exceedingly clear; and we should say that nothing but mechanical skill was required to so adapt these well-known springs as to attain the desired objects expressed in complainant's patent. And while the patented article may have been popular, and met with large sales, that fact is not important when the alleged invention is without patentable novelty. Duer v. Lock Co., 149 U. S. 216, 13 Sup. Ct. 850.

If, however, such a construction could be put on the Timken patent as would save it from being held invalid for anticipation or for want of invention, that construction would certainly exclude appellants' structure. The differences between them are well and accurately given by appellants' expert. Timken's sections have their heels attached at the sides of the wagon bed; cross the entire bottom to reach the opposite side bar; cross each other like the letter X, and have their heels fastened independently and far apart, below the wagon bed, by bolts passing through perforations in the springs, the flexible portions of the sections comprising the entire distance between the shackle bar and the first attaching bolt. In appellants' structure the heels of the sections attach at about the center of the wagon bed, and do not cross the entire bottom to reach the opposite side bar; the sections do not cross each other; the heels are attached closely contiguous to each other by a rigid clip, secured by bolts and clips, the flexion of the section being limited to a length extending from the shackle end of the section to a point some distance nearer the shackle end than the bolt perforation through the section.

As to the Saladee patent, in view of the state of the art as shown by the exhibits, all made more than two years prior to the application for this patent, which was Febru. ary 7, 1881, and the fact that the proof shows that the defendants' springs are made in accordance with the Stickle patent, and that Stickle made his invention, and reduced it to practice, prior to the application for the Sala dee patent, we need spend no time upon it. Moreover, the Cooper patent (No. 200,435) clearly anticipated Saladee's invention.

The decree is reversed and the cause re. manded, with a direction to dismiss the bill.

(155 U. S. 196)

CHEROKEE NATION et al. V. JOURNEY

CAKE.
(November 19, 1891.)

No. 619.
INDIANS CONTRACT BETWEEN CHEROKEES AND
DELAWARES-STATUS AND RIGuts or

DELAWARES. The treaty of July 19, 1866, with the Cherokee Nation (14 Stat. 799), art. '15, provid. ed that the United States might settle Indiang within the Cherokee country, east of the niae.

« PreviousContinue »