[239]

mully under the contract of December 1, 1884, | ment of eight patents granted to different par-
which was also made the basis of the suit No. ties for devices used in the manufacture of
204, just decided. As it is admitted in the bicycles and velocipedes. Upon a hearing in
brief that if the court refused relief against the court below the bill was dismissed, and the
Mr. Gormully for want of equity in the prior plaintiff appealed to this court. 34 Fed. Rep.
suit, there is no reason why it should not refuse 885.
it in this case, it is unnecessary to go into its
details.

v.

The assignment of errors covers only five patents:

1. Patent No. 252280, issued January 10, 1882, to Curtis H. Veeder, for "a seat for bicycles," which the court below held to be limited by previous patents to Lamplugh and Brown, to Shire and to Fowler, and as so limCOM-ited, not to have been infringed by the defend

ants.

2. Patent No. 197289, issued November 20, THE GORMULLY & JEFFERY MANU-1877, to A. L., G. M. and O. E. Peters for an FACTURING COMPANY ET AL.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 238-248.)

Case followed-construction of bicycle patents.
1. The decision in Pope Manufacturing Co. v.
Gormully ante, p. 414, followed as to the construc-

tion and effect of the contract therein con-
strued.

2. Patent No. 252280 issued January 10, 1882, to
Curtis H. Veeder for a seat for bicycles is not in-
fringed by defendant's champion saddle.

3. The second claim of patent No. 197289 issued
November 20, 1877, to A. L., G. M. and O. E. Peters
for an anti-friction journal box, is destitute of
invention and seems to have been anticipated.
4. Patent No. 245542 issued August 9, 1881, to
Thomas W. Moran for handles for velocipedes, it
seems does not involve invention, but if it does,
it was anticipated by the English patent to Har-
rison.

5. The first and third claims of patent No. 310776
issued January 13, 1885, to William P. Benham,
for improvements in velocipedes was anticipated
by the English patent to Illston, and was not in-
fringed by defendants.
6. The second and third claims of patent No. 323162
issued July 28, 1885, to Emmit G. Latta, for an im-
provement in velocipedes, have no novelty and
were not infringed by defendants.
[No. 206.]

Argued March 10, 11, 1892. Decided April 4,

1892.

PPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court

anti-friction journal box, which was held to be
anticipated, and, if not anticipated, not to have
been infringed.

3. Patent No. 245542, issued August 9, 1881,
to Thomas W. Moran for bandles for veloci-
pedes, which the court held did not involve
invention, and was void.

4. Patent No. 310776, issued January 13, 1885, to William P. Benham, for improvements in velocipedes, which the court held had not been infringed by the defendants.

5. Patent No. 323162, issued July 28, 1885, to Emmit G. Latta, for an improvement in velocipedes, which the court, in view of the state of the art, held to be void for want of novelty.

Messrs. L. L. Colburn and Edmund Wetmore for appellant.

Mr. C. K. Offield for appellees.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

The bill in this case, in addition to the usual allegations of a bill for the infringement of a patent, sets forth as a distinct ground for recovery the violation of the contract of December 1, 1884, which it was claimed was obligatory upon the defendants. As this claim was. however, disposed of in the cases Nos. 204 and 205, just decided adversely to the plaintiff, upon grounds which are equally available here, we shall take no further notice of it.

The case

Aof the United States for the Northern Dis is, therefore, resolved in to un ordinary suit for

the infringement of a patent.

(1) Patent No. 252280, to Curtis H. Veeder, is for a "seat for bicycles." In his specification the patentee states that his "improvements relate to the class of seats known as saddles,' and especially to devices for suspending the leather or other flexible material of which the

trict of Illinois, dismissing a suit in equity for
the infringement of eight patents granted to
different parties for devices used in the manu-
facture of bicycles and velocipedes. Afirmed.
See same case below, 34 Fed. Rep. 885.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:
This was a bill in equity for the infringe-seating surface is composed, and for stretching
NOTE. For what patents are granted; when de-
clared void, see note to Evans v. Eaton, 4: 433.
As to patentability of inventions, see notes to As to assignment, before issuing and reissuing pat-
Thompson v. Boisselier, 29: 75, and Corning v. Bur-ent; recording; when assignment transfers extended
den, 14: 683.

As to abandonment of inventions, see note to Pennock v. Dialogue, 7: 327.

As to what reissuc may cover, see note to O'Reilly v. Morse, 14: 601.

terms, see note to Gayler v. Wilder, 13: 504.

As to when assignee may sue for infringement; when patentee must; when they must join, see note to Wilson v. Rousseau, 11: 1141.

As to damages for infringement of patent; treble pat-damages, see note to Hogg v. Emerson, 13: 824.

As to distinction between inventions of mechanism, articles, or products and processes; when latter ented, see note to Corning v. Burden, 14: 683,

As to including process and product in same patent; separate patents therefor, see note to Evans v. Eaton, 4: 433.

As to notes given for patent rights; purchaser before maturity, see note to Mandeville v. Welch, 5: 87. As to prior use or sale of invention renders patent void, see note to French v. Carter, 34: 664.

[240]

or taking up the slack in the same, and for way as to take up the slack. But as Veeder's connecting the same with the perch or support-invention, in view of the state of the art, is a ing bar for the seat, and by means of which | very narrow one, we think it cannot be propthe seat is made adjustable backward and for- erly considered as covering the defendant's deward over the perch or bar; and my present vice. The springs of the defendants' saddle invention .. consists, first, in a divided are not only wholly different in form from metallic spring, or supporting plate for the flex- those of the Veeder patent, but there is no reible seat; second, in a modification of that por-lation between them, the rear one being indetion of said metallic spring which forms the pendently adjustable. The feature of extensiframework for the rear of the seat; third, in bility does not pertain at all to the springs, but mechanism for elongating or extending said to the peculiar manner in which the rear spring metallic spring so as to take up the slack of the is adjusted to the perch. If Veeder had been flexible seat; and fourth, in mechanism for the first to invent a saddle supported upon completing the support of the seat and con- springs, or a flexible spring seat capable of adnecting the same with the perch or supporting. justment, it might be thought that the defend. bar of the vehicle, so as to be adjustable back-ants could be held to infringe, though they do ward and forward thereon."

larger and smaller alternating, and more com
pletely filling said space." The axle is formed
with a grooved flange and the journal with a
similarly grooved or beveled nut. The ends
of the rollers are also somewhat beveled to cor-fringement of the prior ball bearing patents.
respond with the tapering portions of the jour-
nal and nut. When the beveled ends of the
rollers become worn down the beveled sleeve
on the nut may be filed down, and the nut
screwed up, thus keeping the rollers from any
longitudinal motion.

of the spherical balls of the Chinnock, Jewett,
and other patents, it would seem to follow that,
if its device be an infringement of the Peters'
patent, the Peters' patent itself must be an in-

This patent seems to be very nearly, if not quite, a complete anticipation of the Peters patent. Such differences as exist between them are of minor consequence; the beveled [244] shoulder combined with the beveled nut or its equivalent being present in, and the essential feature of, both patents. In any view of the case it required no invention to make the slight alterations apparent in the Peters patent.

(3) The Moran patent, No. 245542, of August 9, 1881, is for a handle for velocipedes, and consists simply in providing rubber han. dles for counteracting the jar on the hands in traveling, and preventing injury to the machine when falling. The claims are:

"1. The handle of a velocipede provided with rubber ends, as set forth.

"2. The handle of a velocipede, in combination with rubber tips sleeved upon its ends, as set forth.

"3. A rubber handle for a velocipede, consisting of a ball and neck combined in one piece, as set forth."

Briefly stated, this patent is for nothing In addition to this, however, the Jewett more nor less than the application of a rubber patent of May, 1868, shows "a journal or axle ball or cushion upon the extremities of the box, provided with a series of spherical balls, handle. The patentee states in his specificawhich are placed in a circular recess or cham- tion that bely claims this rubber in its ap ber, and revolve in contact with the journal or plication to velocipedes, it being a not uncom axle, thereby reducing the friction to a great mon device as applied to other handles. We extent, and entirely avoiding the necessity of have very grave doubt as to whether this inemploying oil or other lubricating material."volves any invention; but if it does, it is fully The grooves of this tent at the opposite ends anticipated in the English patent to Harrison, of the axles are practically the same in their of July, 1877, which exhibits a similar method operation as the beveled shoulder and nut of of covering the handles of bicycles with a the Peters patent, the balls giving both vertical sheath or glove of india-rubber. There is a and lateral support, and preventing end wise slight difference in the form of the sheath in movements. Similar arrangements are shown this case, but it is identical in principle, and in the patent to Perley of 1863, and the Eng- used for the same purpose. Indeed, the delish patent to Mennons of 1860. fendant in this connection seems to rely not upon the validity of his patent, but upon the estoppel alleged to have arisen under the contract of 1884, which we have already held not to exist.

There was also a patent issued to one Smith upon the same day the Peters' patent was issued, namely, November 20, 1877. but upon an application filed September 1, 1877, prior to Peters' application, and, therefore, anticipating Peters' patent, in which was represented an axle formed with a spindle, having a collar at its inner end, in which collar was a circumferential half round groove. The outer end of this spindle is reduced in circumference, and another collar is placed thereon and fastened by a screw, this collar being also provided with a similar groove. In each collar is placed a series of anti-friction balls, which are of such diameter as to be one half within the groove in the collar. The other half of the ball is within a groove formed one half in the hub and the other half in the flange upon an annular plate. The operation of this patent is practically the same as that of the device used by the defend

ant.

This device appears to be, however, a minor variation upon the English provisional specification of 1853 to Chinnock, which also consisted in securing the axle in the box by means of one or more spherical balls running in a circular channel, formed partly in the axle and partly in the box in which it fits. Defendants are the owners of and manufacturing under this patent, and the fact that this and the Peters' applications were pending before the Patent [245] Office at the same time, and that patents were issued upon the same day, is strong evidence that they were not even considered as competitive inventions.

As the defendants' manufacture was not of the elongated rollers of the Peters' patent, but

(4) Patent No. 310776, to Benham is for a method of attaching the horizontal handle bar to the steering bead of a bicycle, and consists in making the handle bar, which may be either solid or tubular, continuous, and attaching to the middle of it a lug or detent, which serves not only to locate the handle bar evenly and quickly by an even division of its length on either side of the middle line of the head, but also to prevent the handle bar when in position from turning or revolving on its axis. The first and third claims of the patent, which are alleged to be infringed, are as follows:

"1. The combination of an undivided and an open-slotted lug, and two sleeve-nuts, or their equivalents, one on either side the lug, surrounding the bar and adapted to lock it rigidly to the lug, essentially as set forth."

3. In combination with the handle bar B, the detent D, constructed and adapted to oper ate substantially as and for the purposes set forth."

The patent is really for making the handlebar in one piece and so attaching it to the steering head of the bicycle so as to prevent any lateral or rotary movement. This is done by the use of sleeve-nuts surrounding the handle bar and engaging with threaded portions of a lug, through which the bar is thrust.

If there be any scope for invention in the attachment of a horizontal bar to a vertical one in such manner that it shall be firm aud immovable in any direction, t. is device ap

[24

there is no novelty in the particular shape in [248}
which these rubber coverings are made, or the
form which the corrugations or groovings shall
take; it is a mere matter of taste or mechanical
skill.

If there be any novelty at all in the Latta
patent it must receive such an exceedingly
narrow construction that the defendant cannot
be held to have infringed it.

pears to have been substantially anticipated by | vent slipping being once conceded to be old,
the English patent to Illston, issued in 1879,
which shows substantially the same elements
operating for the same purpose, and in sub-
stautially the same manner. Illston states that
he makes "near the top of the head of the bi-
cycle or tricy cle a cross hollow bracket open
at its ends and top," corresponding to the
open slotted lug of the Benham patent. "The
said bracket has externally a nearly cylindrical
figure, and its ends are furnished with convex
screws.
On each side of the middle
flattened part of the handle bar is a sliding col-
lar milled externally, and screwed internally
with a concave screw proper to fit on the con-
vex screw at the end of the hollow or trough
bracket on the head." The screw collars of
this patent correspond very closely with the
sleeve nuts of the Benham patent.

Upon the whole, it does not seem to us that there was any patentable difference between

In short, the patents, which are made the basis of this bill are, in view of the state of the art, all of them of a trivial character, and, so far as they possess any merit at all, are not infringed by the devices employed by the defendant.

The decree of the court below dismissing the bill is therefore affirmed.

PANY, Appt.,

0.

these two devices, and if there were, we agree THE POPE MANUFACTURING COM. with the opinion of the court below, that it is certainly not infringed by the defendants, [247] who, while they use an undivided handle bar, have adopted a different method for fastening the same to the steering bead, and do not use either the compiainaut's open slotted lug and two sleeve nuts or their detent

THE GORMULLY & JEFFERY MANU.
FACTURING COMPANY ET AL.

(5) Patent No. 323162, of July 28, 1885, to
Emmit G. Latta, relates to a form of protect-
ing or cushioning the pedals of a velocipede
with india rubber. There are eight claims to
this patent, the second and third only of 1.
which are alleged to be infringed. They are
as follows:

2. The combination, with the pedal frame,
of a rubber pedal bar, H, provided with a cen-
tral lougitudinal grove, h, and two bearing-
surfaces, h, on opposite sides of the groove,
h, substantially as set forth.

3. The combination, with the pedal frame, of a rubber pedal bar, H, pivoted to the frame by a rod, i, and provided on each of its sides with a longitudinal groove, h, and two bearing faces, h', on opposite sides of the groove, whereby the bar, H, is adapted to receive the pressure at its sides or edges and be compressed on opposite sides of the rod, i, substantially as set forth."

The invention in these claims consists in the pedal bar, combined with the pedal frame, the pecial bar being rubber, constructed with grooves and bearing faces; the second claim providing for the bar being pivoted to the frame, so that it works easily either side up, and will turn on its bearings as the foot presses on the front face or the rear face of the pedal. The pedal is centrally grooved and has two bearing faces, one on each side of the centerrod on which it is pivoted.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 248-254.)

Right of patentee to assign his monopoly, limited
-when assignee may sue-when assignment
is mere license-legal title-infringement.
The monopoly granted by the patent laws is
one entire thing, and cannot be divided into
parts, except as authorized by those laws.

2.

The right of the patentee to assign his monop-
oly, so as to vest a title in the patent in the as-
signee with the right to sue infringers, is limited
either to the whole patent, comprising the ex-
clusive right to make, use, and vend the inven-
tion throughout the United States; or, to an un-
divided part or share of that exclusive right; or,
to the exclusive right under the patent within
and throughout a specified territory.

3. If the assignment is of the whole patent, or of
the exclusive right under the patent in a speci-
fied territory, the assignee may sue infringers in
NOTE.--For what patents are granted; when de-
clared void, see note to Evans v. Eaton, 4: 433.
As to patentability of inventions, see notes to
Thompson v. Boisselier, 29: 76, and Corning v. Bur-
den, 14: 683.

As to abandonment of invention, see note to Pen-
nock v. Dialogue, 7: 327.

articles, or products and processes; when latter pat-
ented, see note to Corning v. Burden, 14: 683.

As to distinction between inventions of mechanism,

As to including process and product in same pat-
ent; separate patents therefor, see note to Evans v.
Eaton, 4: 433.

As to what reissue may cover, see note to O'Reilly
Morse, 14: 601.

As to assignment, before issuing and reissuing pat-
ent; recording; when assignment transfers extended
terms, see note to Gayler v. Wilder, 13: 504.

As to when assignee may sue for infringement; when patentee must; when they must join, see note to Wilson v. Rousseau, 11: 1141.

The application of india rubber to foot ped-v.
als is shown in the English patent to Harrison
of July, 1877, to prevent the slipping of the
feet on the pedais. This rubber is made cor-
rugated, and is placed in the same position
upon the pedals as the ordinary smooth surface
rubber had been placed. The English patent
to Jackson, of 1876, also shows a treadle cast
in one piece, having suitable grooves formed
therein to allow of india rubber being affixed
within them by means of cement. It is en-
titely clear that the coating of pedals to pre-

damages, see note to Hogg v. Emerson, 13: 824.
As to damages for infringement of patent; treble

As to notes given for patent rights; purchaser be-
fore maturity, see note to Mandeville v. Welch, 5: 87.
That prior use or sale of invention renders patent
void, see note to French v. Carter, 34: 664.

The instrument should evidently be read as though there were a comma after the word [250] "infringement," as the following words are evidently intended as a limitation upon the prior granting clause. It is then only so far as this patent "relates to or covers the adjust

Argued March 10, 11, 1892. Decided April 4, able hammock seat or saddle," that the paten

that the grant of an exclusive right to make and vend an article within a certain territory, Wet-upon paying to the assignor a cent per pound,

There are two patents involved in this case, both of which relate to what is known as ham-ferent question from the one involved in this mock saddles for bicycles.