rotative movement" of the cap on the sleeve is the feature which the petitioner added to the socket of the patent in suit before putting it upon the market, and it consists, as the figure supra shows, in the open slot (19) cut to the edge of the [673] flange of the cap, into which passes the projection on the sleeve (20) when the two are "telescopically applied" to each other. This projection (20) is formed by cutting two longitudinal slits in the sleeve, and then pressing outward the narrow strip of metal between them. It is perfectly true, as stated in four of the claims, and as asserted with much emphasis in the specification, that this added device effectively prevents any relative rotative movement of the cap and sleeve upon each other.

Coming now to the construction of the respondent, which it is claimed infringes the fourth claim of the patent in suit.

This (respondent's) socket has been manufactured since 1909, under patent No. 927,344, and it may most readily be described by reference to the following, figure 3 of the drawing, which was a part of the specification of the patent. Fig. 3.

[blocks in formation]

bayonet slots of the familiar form (14), so positioned that the studs on the cap may enter them when the sleeve is slipped into the cap. But when the sleeve has been telescoped, or pushed, into the cap, so that the lugs have been pressed to the end or bottom of the longitudinal part of the bayonet slots (14), rotation of the sleeve is obviously necessary to bring them into the transverse parts of the slots, so that the two members will be locked against longitudinal separation. (No such rotative movement of the two members is mentioned in the patent in suit, it is expressly provided against in petitioner's second patent, and it is not possible in its commercial socket.)

This rotative movement accomplishes a second result.

Reference to the figure, supra, shows a longitudinal slot in the sleeve, which in the key socket affords a passage for the key, but in the keyless socket is narrower, and serves only to render the sleeve compressible. To the left of this slot in the sleeve is cut a round hole (15) so positioned that when three of the lugs in the cap are brought by the rotative movement to the ends of the transverse parts of the bayonet lots the fourth stud will snap into the hole (15). This hole (15) is placed in such a relative position that when the three lugs enter the longitudinal parts of the bayonet slots, the fourth stud rides upon the metal near the edge of the slot in the sleeve, and to facilitate this movement the corner of the slot (16) is bent slightly inward. Thus the ad. justment of the studs in the cap is practically a universal adjustment between the cap and shell, so that if any one lug is in [675] position to enter any bayonet slot, two others will be in position to enter the other bayonet slots, and the fourth will be in a position to enter the hole (15) when the sleeve and cap have been so pressed together that the (three) other studs have reached the ends of the longitudinal part of the bayonet slots, and the rotation described of the one upon the other has been completed.. A slight compression of the sleeve suffices to release the members when desired.

This description shows that the structural features of the two sockets are strikingly different. Instead of slits and outwardly extending recesses in the cap of the one, there are inwardly extended studs riveted to the cap of the other. And instead of slits and out

[ocr errors]

ward projections of the sleeve to lock, Oetting patent, No. 642,825, and to the by snap action, with recesses in the cap Kenney patent, No. 712,686, and it is against longitudinal movement in the clear that the chief concern of the apone, there are the bayonet slots in the plicant thereafter was to distinguish his sleeve to lock with studs in the cap of construction from that of Kenney, the other, to accomplish the same re- which is very similar to that of respondsult without snap action. But these dif- ent. The Kenney socket has lugs in the ferent constructions not only differ rad- cap and bayonet slots in the sleeve, to ically in structural features, but they lock against longitudinal movement, as do not function in the same manner; respondent's socket has, and also slots for locking against longitudinal move- with open ends and locking holes simment in the one is by snap action upon ilarly placed in the sleeve to lock direct longitudinal thrust of the sleeve against rotary movement when the lugs into the cap, while the other requires in the cap engage with them. The chief first a longitudinal movement or thrust, difference between the Kenney and and then a rotative movement, without respondent's socket is that in Kenney which it is entirely ineffective, whereby the lug passes down the slot to a posiit locks against longitudinal movement without snap action.

But it is argued that the infringement lies especially in the locking hole (15) in respondent's socket and the associated lug, which operate by snap action and afford a positive lock against rotation of the two members on each other. The sufficient answer to this is that the patent in suit makes no suggestion of a lock against the rotative movement of the cap and sleeve on each other, and contains no disclosure providing for it, but, on the contrary, because [676] the beveled sides which are required by claim 4, for the projections on the sleeve, permitted such movement, a subsequently patented addition was added to prevent it. The petitioner cannot read into the patent in suit the additional slot in the cap and the additional projection on the sleeve of patentee's second patent, and without them there is no lock against rotative movement in the socket of the first patent to be infringed by the stud snapping into the locking hole of the sleeve of respondent's socket.

tion opposite the locking hole, and [677] then with the rotary movement mounts and rides over the narrow strip of metal

"the bridge"-into the hole, while in the respondent's socket the lugs having plain faces ride on the metal near to the edge of the slot during the longitudinal movement, and from that position pass into the locking holes with the rotative movement.

When his application was rejected by the Patent Office on reference to the Kenney patent thus described, the applicant, without objection or appeal, amended his claim 7 (numbering it 4) by adding the words in italies, and in his explanatory "remarks," when submitting these amendments, it was said: "Claim 4, originally 7, is now drawn to a specific structure, having advantages not found in either of the references cited. By transversely slitting the sheet metal shell and displacing the wall on one side of said slit to form a beveled or inclined projection, the parts are permitted to be applied to each other by simply inserting one within the other, without manually compressing the inner member." And again: "Kenney's device is adapted to unlock by simply rotating one member upon another in the same manner that the parts are locked together, no manual compression of the inner member being necessary."

This is sufficient to dispose of the case, but we also fully agree with the circuit court of appeals that the prior art, the file wrapper, and the second patent to the same patentee, No. 916,812, supra, require that the expressions in the fourth claim, "telescopically received" and "telescopically applied," must be Thus the patentee, in order to avoid restricted to a direct longitudinal move-infringing Kenney's construction, volment or thrust of the sleeve into the untarily restricted himself to a "specific cap, and that for this reason the con- structure," operative when the sleeve struction of respondent, requiring a was "simply" inserted in the cap, withrotary movement to render it effective, out suggesting any rotary movement does not infringe that of the petitioner. whatever, but, on the contrary, by his In the application for the patent in reference to Kenney as locking and unsuit this fourth claim, originally the locking by "simply rotating one member seventh, read, as we have quoted it, upon the other," clearly implying that omitting the words in italics. In no such rotary movement was necessary this form it was promptly rejected by in the adjustment of his socket. Having the Patent Office on reference to the thus narrowed his claim against rotary


movement in order to obtain a patent, the patentee may not by construction, or by resort to the doctrine of equivalents, give to the claim the larger scope which it might have had without the amendments, which amount to a [678] disclaimer of rotation as an operative feature of his device. Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U. S. 593, 598, 29 L. ed. 723, 724, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Hubbell v. United States, 179 U. S. 77, 80, 45 L. ed. 95, 98, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.

upon each other, and also because the file wrapper and the subsequent patent show that the disclosure is, and was intended to be, limited to a construction operative by direct longitudinal movement or thrust without such rotative movement.

The contention, pressed strenuously upon our attention, that the added open slot in the cap and projection on the sleeve, provided for in the second patent, were devised simply to secure the But that no rotary movement was im- alignment of the projections and recesses of the first patent in making plied in the use of "telescopically received" and "telescopically applied" in telescopic application of the two memthe patent in suit is further unmistak- bers to each other, is not convincing ably shown by the frequent use of the [679] in the presence of the fact that same or equivalent expressions in the claims 1, 3, 13, and 14 of the second specification and claims of patentee's patent are devoted almost wholly to later patent, No. 916,812, supra, in claiming that this improved construction which claims 1, 3, 13, and 14 relate al- is intended "to prevent relative rotative most wholly to an improvement which movement" of one member upon the renders rotation of the members one other, while only claims 11 and 12 upon the other impossible, and which refer, quite incidentally, to what is petitioner added to the construction of now claimed to be the chief function the patent in suit before putting the sockets upon the market. That the inventor did not intend to claim, and that he certainly did not disclose, that any in such rotary movement was necessary his socket as was required to render the socket of the respondent effective, is, we think, for these reasons, so clear that it is not necessary to consider the dictionary definitions of the words used, upon which the circuit court of appeals, with sound reason, relied in reaching this

Without a

of the added parts, that of a guide to the positioning of the recesses and projections of the first patent with reference to each other. guide, the difficulty should not be very great of aligning projections and recesses distant from each other but a fraction of an inch when the edges of the cap and sleeve are in contact. The constructions held by the circuit court of appeals of the second circuit to infringe the patent in suit were so essentially different from that of the reFor the reasons thus elaborated, we conclude that the socket of the respond-spondent that we regard discussion of ent does not infringe the fourth claim them as quite unnecessary. of the patent in suit because there is no claim made therein of a lock against rotative movement of the cap and sleeve

same conclusion.


It results that the decree of the Cir. cuit Court of Appeals as to claims 1 and 4 must be affirmed.

256 U. S.




COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v.
HANNAH L. ZUBER. [No. 198.]
Certiorari to state court-improvident-
ly granted-dismissal Federal question.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the State of Oklahoma.
See same case below, 76 Okla. 146, 7
A.L.R. 840, 184 Pac. 452.

Messrs. Joseph M. Bryson, J. R. Cottingham, Clifford L. Jackson, Samuel W. Hayes, Alexander Britton, and Maurice D. Green for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Charles W. Smith for defendant in


April 11, 1921. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of

(1) Furness W. & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Asso. 242 U. S. 430, 61 L. ed. 409, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440, 62 L. ed. 385, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140.

(2) California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389, 393, 38 L. ed. 206, 207, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Cuyahoga River Power Works v. Northern Realty Co. 244 U. S. 300, 303, 61 L. ed. 1153, 1157, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 643; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 62 L. ed. 701, 703, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 264; Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271, 63 L. ed. 233, 235, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111. See writ of error dismissed February 28, 1921.

J. L. HUDSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. O. L. HOPKINS, as County Treasurer, etc. [No. 194]; and WILLIAM E. MCGUIRE, as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. E. J. MCCURDY, as County Treasurer, etc. [No. 195.]

Error to state court-Federal question -error or certiorari.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.

See same case below, 75 Okla. 260, 183 Pac. 507.

Mr. Elmer [682] E. Grinstead for plaintiff in error.

Mr. C. Kenny Templeton for defendants in error.

April 18, 1921. Per Curiam: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of $ 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 726, chap. 448, Comp. Stat. § 1214, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 411), § 2.

N. W. PALMER et al., Plaintiffs in Error, V. RACHEAL KING et al. [No. 245.] Error to state court-Federal question -error or certiorari.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.

See same case below, 75 Okla. 276, 183 Pac. 411.

Mr. C. S. Arnold for plaintiffs in er


Mr. Elmer D. Means for defendants in error.

April 18, 1921. Per Curiam: Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 726, chap. 448, Comp. Stat. § 1214, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 411), § 2.

HERBERT DARLINGTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. HARRY W. MAGER, Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of Illinois. [No. 716.]

Internal revenue-income tax-accretion of selling values.

In Error to the District Court of the Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, and United States for the Northern District Mandamus in these cases severally. of Illinois. Mr. William J. Hennessey for petitioners.

Messrs. Herbert Pope, Rush C. Butler, James J. Forstall, and E. Barrett Prettyman for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Solicitor General Frierson for defendant in error.

April 18, 1921. Per Curiam: Affirmed with costs, upon authority of the Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. at L. 1057, 1065, chap. 18, Comp. Stat. § 63361 ff), § 213 a; Act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 756, 757, chap. 463, Comp. Stat. § 6336 b, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 313), § 2 (a); Merchants' Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, No. 608, 255 U. S. 509, ante, 445, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 386; Eldorado Coal & Min. Co. v. Mager, No. 609, 255 U. S. 522, ante, 449, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; Goodrich v. Edwards, No. 663, 255 U. S. 527, ante, 450, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; and Walsh v. Brewster, No. 742, decided March 28, 1921, 255 U. S. 536, ante, 451, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 392.

No appearance for respondents. April 25, 1921. Denied.

[blocks in formation]

ULRICA DAHLGREN PIERCE, as Trustee and Individually, Appellant, v. JOHN V. DAHLGREN. [No. 800.]

Appeal from circuit court of appeals -Federal question.

Appeal from the United States Circuit [683] of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See same case below, 270 Fed. 507. Mr. J. Warren Keifer for appellant. Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert, Howard Thayer Kingsbury, and Lawrence Maxwell for appellee.

April 18, 1921. Per Curiam: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 58 L. ed. 1557, 1560, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; St. Anthony's Church v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 237 U. S. 575, 577, 59 L. ed. 1119, 1122, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 237 U. S. 300, 302, 59 L. ed. 965, 966, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Yurkonis, 238 U. S. 439, 444, 59 L. ed. 1397, 1400, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 902.

[blocks in formation]

EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS G. MORAN, Petitioner [No. —, Original]; and EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF HENRY O. HOLLANDER, Petitioner [No. Original].

Motions for leave to file petitions for

DLE, Petitioner. [No., Original.]
Motion for leave to file petition for a
Writ of Mandamus herein.

Mr. Benjamin Carter for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
May 16, 1921. Denied.

« ForrigeFortsett »