which was lateral, permitted the tipping-plate to offer the same resistance to the longitudinal and vertical strains required for the operation of the mechanism as if the latter were rigidly attached to the main carriage. The machine with this improvement was accepted as perfected and went into extensive general use. It was the first that was ever so accepted and used, and no machine without it has ever been commercially used since that time.

We are of opinion that the discovery by these patentees of the proper means for remedying the fatal defect which existed in all prior machines of this character, simple as the device was, amounted to something more than the exercise of merely ordinary mechanical skill and reached the higher domain of invention. The simplicity of the device and its apparent obviousness after the event ought not to detract from its meritoriousness. That it had never been suggested or thought of before, and effectually supplied the one thing necessary to bring success, when before there had been nothing but failure, is sufficient to entitle it to rank as a new and useful improvement in the mechanic arts, within the meaning of the patent law.

In each case the decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court with directions to enter a decree for the complainant upon the eighth claim of the patent in suit for an injunction and an account.

[U.S. Circuit Court-Eastern District of Pennsylvania.]

SHAPLEIGH v. CHESTER ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY et al. Decided May 29, 1894.

68 O. G., 281.

SHAPLEIGH-SAFETY CUT-OFFS-INFRINGEMENT.

Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 of Letters Patent No. 433,187, dated July 29, 1890, granted to Marshall S. Shapleigh for a safety cut-off, Held to involve as an essential element terminals each provided with lateral supports and to be not infringed by a device materially different in structure from that specified in the claims. Mr. Mark W. Collet, Mr. John R. Bennett, and Mr. Randall Morgan for the complainants.

Messrs. Strawbridge & Taylor for the defendants.

DALLAS, J..

This suit is brought by Marshall S. Shapleigh upon Letters Patent No. 433,187, dated July 29, 1890, granted to him for a safety cut-off. The claims which he alleges the defendants have infringed are as follows:

1. The combination of a pair of spring-clamps, a fuse placed between the jaws of said clamps and automatically clamped thereby, and terminals provided with lateral supports operating to compress the jaws of said clamps externally, substantially as described.

2. The combination of a pair of spring-clamps insulated from each other except through the fuse, terminals placed on a suitable insulating-block and provided with

lateral supports, between which the jaws of said clamps pass and are compressed externally, and a fuse automatically held by and between the jaws of said clamps, substantially as described.

4. The combination of a pair of spring contact-clamps made of an elastic conducting material and provided with jaws, by and between which the fuse is placed and automatically clamped, with a pair of terminals placed on a suitable insulating block and provided with lateral supports operating to compress the jaws of the clamping-contacts externally, substantially as described.

7. The combination of a block provided with two terminals, supports of conducting material electrically connected to said terminals and in permanent mechanical connection therewith, a pair of spring-clamps provided with jaws connected by an insulating-piece, and a fuse, the whole being arranged so that the jaws are pressed upon the fuse antomatically and complete the circuit between the terminals.

9. The combination of a pair of spring-clamps insulated from each other and provided with jaws, a fuse automatically held by and between the jaws of said clamps, and terminals provided with lateral supports sufficiently close to compress the jaws, substantially as described.

Safety cut-offs were not new with this inventor. Before the patent in suit was applied for they were well known, and, as in the complainant's device, their principal constituent was a strip of metal more fusible than the conducting wire employed throughout the system generally. These more fusible pieces are themselves capable of conducting, without fusing, the current intended to be transmitted, and, being interposed as a part of the continuous conductor, they simply form, so long as the normal current is not exceeded, a small section of any circuit to which they are applied; but if, and when, from any cause, the ordinary current is materially increased, they, by fusing, break the circuit, and thus operate to secure immunity from the danger which otherwise would arise from the passage of the abnormal current beyond the point of their insertion. In addition to the fusible strip all automatic cut-offs comprise certain other requisite features in common; but it is not necessary to describe them.

Each of the claims involved in this case is for a combination of physical parts constituting an integral organism, and of each of them terminals provided with lateral supports is an essential element. As to whether the defendants' arrangement embodies this element the experts broadly differ. Having considered their testimony with care, and having also closely examined and compared the respective devices for myself, I have reached the conclusion that that of the defendants is, at least as to the element especially mentioned, materially different in structure from that of the plaintiff; and, furthermore, I am convinced of the pertinency and soundness of the point made by the learned counsel for the defendants

that each terminal of each pair of terminals of the Shapleigh patent is an electrical device embodying lateral supports and must necessarily so be; whereas but one terminal at most of each pair of defendants' terminals is or need be an electrical terminal embodying lateral supports, and that therefore defendants' device does not infringe the specific combination of the claims of complainant's patent.

Upon the ground that infringement of the plaintiff's patent by the defendants has not been shown, the bill is dismissed, with costs.

[U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals-Second Circuit.]

GROTH et al. v. INTERNATIONAL POSTAL SUPPLY COMPANY.

Decided April 19, 1894.

68 O. G., 413.

1. HEY AND LAASS-MAIL-STAMPING APPARATUS-INFRINGEMENT.

Claims 1 and 3 of Patents No. 341,380, dated May 4, 1886, and No. 388,366, dated August 21, 1888, issued to George W. Hey and Emil Laass, for improvements in mail-stamping apparatus, construed and Held not to be infringed because of certain limitations, specified by the patentees themselves, and not found in the alleged infringing devices.

2. PIONEER INVENTION-SCOPE OF CLAIM.

Where the claims are restrictively drawn, the fact that the invention is a pioneer cannot serve to do away with the restrictions specified in the claims. APPEAL from an interlocutory decree of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, which decreed in favor of the complainant in a bill in equity to restrain the infringement of the second and third claims of Letters Patent of the United States No. 341,380, dated May 4, 1886, and of the first and third claims of Letters Patent No. 388, 366, dated August 21, 1888. Each patent was for improvements in mail-stamping apparatus, and each was granted to George W. Hey and Emil Laass, assignors to the complainant.

Mr. Rowland Cox for the appellants.

Mr. George W. Hey for the appellee.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Judges.

SHIPMAN, J.:

The inventions which are the subject of the two patents and which were made by the same inventors are machines for automatically postmarking and canceling the stamps upon mail-matter. The original specification which accompanied the application for the earlier patent described both electrical and mechanical means for actuating the stamp or marker. At the request of the Patent Office Examiner the application was divided, and a new one was filed on June 2, 1884, which was confined to purely mechanical means for releasing the stamp. This application was thrown into interference with the application of M. V. B. Ethridge, and the issuance of the second patent was delayed until August 21, 18SSS.

The eighteen claims of No. 341,380 describe a machine of a very ingeuious character. Other automatic stamp-canceling machines had existed, but this machine first made the letter, moving upon the supporting bed, to be the means which brought into operation the stamping mechanism, so that the stamp should necessarily descend upon and mark the letter and should not come in contact with and smear the supporting-bed when the presence of a letter was for any reason delayed. In previous machines the letter did not exercise control over the stamp or marker, which was or might be in action, although no letter was present to receive the

impression, so that ink was deposited on the face of the supporting-bed, and in consequence the letters which subsequently made their appearance were defaced.

The following general description of that portion of the mechanism which is especially referred to in the two claims which are said to have been infringed is condensed from the specification of the patent: The letters, having been introduced into a suitable channel, are carried successively along a bed by means of a belt or suitable rollers. In this movement they encounter an actuating-barrier, called in the patent a "rake," and this engagement causes the rake to be drawn along with the movement of the letter. This movement of the rake is utilized to control the action of the marker or stamp, which is accomplished by connecting with the rake a suitable tripping device, which throws into action a temporarily restrained motor adapted to actuate the marker, so that the stamp is forced downward and caused to mark the letter. The pressure of the stamp, while the rake is lifted by a cam, releases the letter, the rake is carried back to its normal position, and the electric circuit is broken. The second and fourth claims are as follows:

2. An automatic marking or stamping apparatus comprising a bed for supporting the article to be marked, a marking-stamp supported opposite said bed, an actuating-barrier or selecting-feeler arranged to be encountered by the article passing over said bed and transmitting motion to the marking-stamp, substantially as set forth. 4. In combination with a letter-supporting bed, a carrier for moving the letter over the bed, a stamp or marker, and a mechanical engaging-finger to engage the moving letter and transmit motion to the stamp or marker, substantially as described.

The defendants' machine contains a bed, a stamp, and means to prevent the stamp from striking on the bed and inking it when no letter is present. These means are briefly described in the appellants' brief, as follows. They consist

of a swinging foot, which is attached to a crank-shaft that passes through the shaft of the stamp, and which is actuated by a stationary foot or tripper. In the bed immediately below the stationary foot a slot or hole is cut. When the letter is on the bed under the stamp, the slot or hole is covered by the letter, and the foot or tripper strikes it, whereby the swinging foot is lifted, thus permitting the stamp to deliver an impression. When no letter is present on the bed, the foot or tripper enters the slot or hole, whereby the swinging foot, occupying a vertical position, strikes the bed and prevents the stamp from coming in contact with it.

No. 388,366 describes a different method of carrying into effect the principle of No. 341,380. The letter while it is in transit on and over a supporting-bed comes in contact with what the specification calls "selecting devices" or "mechanical fingers or feelers," which are so shaped as to engage readily with the sealed flaps of the envelopes. Through the medium of pivoted connections motion is transmitted from the "selecting device" to a lever, and the stamp is released and comes in contact with the advancing letter. The specification says:

The operation of the invention will be readily understood from the description of the invention and of the functions of the various parts, and it is only necessary to call attention to the fact that the stamping mechanism is normally at rest in a set

position, and that when the letter is presented the selecting devices mechanically feel its surfaces and engage the overlapping or sealed edges thereof. The movement of the letter while the selecting devices are engaged causes the selecting devices to move toward the center of the stamping apparatus, carrying with them the connections which transmit the motion of the selecting devices to the releasing-catch of the stamp-roller. The stamp-roller when released is forced by its depressing springs onto the letter, and the onward advance of the letter revolves the roller-stamp, causing it to impress the requisite stamp on the letter, while the restraining mechanism is being raised in position to reset the roller-stamp.

The first and third claims are as follows:

1. In a machine for stamping or marking mail-matter, the combination, with the supporting feed-bed, of a stamp normally out of the path of movement of the mailmatter, and a stamp tripper or releaser normally in said path.

3. In a machine for marking or stamping mail-matter, the combination, with a supporting feed-bed, of a stamp normally out of the path of the movement of the mail matter, and a stamp tripper or releaser normally in said path and opposite the letter-bed, substantially as specified.

The question of infringement is the one which principally presents itself for examination in regard to each patent.

No. 341,380.

The foundation of the complainants' argument in regard to infringement is the fact that the invention of this patent is a primary one, inasmuch as the idea of making the letter the instrumentality which should bring into action the stamp, and thus compelling the movement of the stamp to depend upon the movement of the letter, was first embodied in the patentees' machine. It is therefore insisted that the claims of the patent should have a liberal construction, and that the special devices described in the specification "are not necessary constituents of the claims." (Morley Sewing Machine Co. v. Lancaster, C. D., 1889, 380; 47 O. G., 267; 129 U. S., 263; 9 Sup. Ct., 299.) This just principle is one that is well recognized; but another principle is, at the present stage of the patent law, of equal force, which is that the construction of the patent must be in conformity with the self-imposed limitations which are contained in the claims, or, in the language adopted in McClain v. Ortmayer, (C. D., 1891, 532; 57 O. G., 1229; 141 U. S., 419; 12 Sup. Ct., 76)—

if the language of the specification and claim shows clearly what he [the patentee] desired to secure as a monopoly, nothing can be held to be an infringement which does not fall within the terms the patentee has himself chosen to express his invention.

The specification of No. 341,380 describes a machine in which the letter moving forward meets in its path and actuates a finger which communicates motion to tripping mechanism, so that the stamp is released.

In the Groth device the moving and descending finger comes in contact with a stationary letter, and the result is that the presence of the letter at rest under the descending finger permits the stamp to be operative.