NEWTON

v.

FURST AND BRADLEY COMPANY

Mb. Justice Blatcheobd delivered the opinion of the .conrt.

This is a suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the' United States for the Northern District of Illinois by Bobert-Newton against the .Furst and Bradley Manufacturing Company and others, to recover for the infringement Of reissued letters-patent No. 8986, granted to the plaintiff, December 2d, 1879, on an application, filed October 15th, 1879, for an improvement in gang-ploughs, (the original patent, No. 56,812, having been granted to F. S. Davenport, as inventor, October 9th, 1866).

The specification and claims of the original, and those of the reissue, and the drawings of the reissue, are as follows, the parts in each which are not found in the other being in' italic:

Original.

“ Be it' known that I, F. S. Davenport, of Jerseyville, Jersey county, and State of Illinois, have invented a new and improved plough; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description ^thereof,'which will enable others skilled in the art to make and use the' same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, [p. 376] forming part of this-specification, in which —

Reissue.

“ Be it known that I, F. S. Davenport, of Jerseyville, Jersey county, and State of Illinois, have invented a new and improved loAeei-plough; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description thereof, which will enable others skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the acompanying drawings, forming part of this specification. [See page 376.] The object of my mvenUon' is to provide i/mpi'oved means for utilizing the d/raft of the team in raising a plough from' the ground / er-ated as and for the purpose described.

2. The hinged board G, in connection with the. reversible axles, substantially as and for the purpose described.

3. The lever O and quadrant N', for regulating the depth of the furrow, substantially as and for the purpose , specified.

4. Lifting the hind part of the machine by means of the lever or arm I, in connection with the chai/n J, wheel H, and lever L, these parts operating together, substantidll/y as and for the purpose described.

'5. Hinging the foot-board without causing either jerk or strain upon the horses or the machine.

The hind plough can be raised or lowered independent of the other, the standard 'B1 sliding in an iron block, Ox, and operated by a lever, Ax, extending forward to the front of the seat, and secured in the required position by notches in the side of the seat-standard, as shown in Fig. 3.

Homing fuLly described my invention, what I claim as new,. and desire to secure by letters-patent, is — •

1. In a wheelplough, the combination, with a swing-axle and ground or carrying-wheel, of friction-clutch mechanism, and means for .engaging and disengaging the latter with the ground or carrying-wheel, sctid parts being constructed and adapted to raise the plough by locking the swing-axle to the carrying-wheel by friction-ckutch engagement, and. raise 'the plough-beam by the d/raft or power of the team, substantially as set forth.

•2. In a wheelplough, the combination, with a ground-wheel, . a swing-axle, and aplough-bea/m connected to the latter, of clutch-mechanism connected to the axle, and adapted, by engage-M to the plough-frame, as described.

6. Securing the tongue or draffpole to the foot-board M, in the manrner.o/nd for'the purpose described.

The sbidvngplough-sta/ndr-. drd JB’, guide-block Of, lever Af, a/nd notched seat-standard C,. when, used together and in cownection with the other parts,

8. Connecting the lever L with the tongue or draft-pole by fastening it-to - the foot-board, the whole" operating together, substantially as and for ' the purpose set forth.” ment with the wheel, to utilize the draft of the team in turning the swing-axle into upright position, and thereby raise the plough-beam,' substantially as . set. forth.

3. In a wheelplough, the Com-binatión, /with a ground-wheel, a swing-axle, a/ndaploügh-beam connected to tTie latter, of a friction-clutch connected to the axle, a/nd adapted, by contact with the wheel, to turn the axle into upright position, and thereby raise, the plovgh-beam by aid of the d/raft of the team, substantially as set forth!

The' answer sets up, among other defences, non-infringement ; and that the reissued patent is invalid because not for the same invention as the original. On a hearing on proofs,

the Circuit Court entered a decree, which finds that the equities are with the defendants, and that they do not.infringe on the rights of the plaintiff, and dismisses the bill. The plaintiff has appealed to this court.

By the opinion of the Circuit Court in the case, 11 Bissell, 405, it appears that the defences of npn-infringement and of the invalidity of the reissue were sustained. .Infringement is hot. asserted in this court as to any claim of the reissue but the first.

In regard to the subject-matter of that claim, the specification of the reissue states that the invention consists “ in the combination, with a swing-axle and ground or carrying-wheel, of friction-clutch mechanism,-and means for engaging and disengaging the latter with the ground or carrying-wheel, said parts being -constructed and adapted to raise the plough by locking the swinb -\xle to the carrying-wheel by friction-clutch engagement, and raise the plough-beam by the draft or power of the team.” The first claim of the reissue, uses the same language, with the prefix of the words “ iu a wheel-plough,”' and the addition, at the end, of the words “ substantially <as set forth.”

The others alterations made, in the specification are, that “gang-plough” is changed into “wA<?&-plough;” “iron aide” into “journal/ ” and “hinged bowrd” into “swing-axle.”

The first claim of the original patent is for a combination of the lever P with the rod Q and the brake B. When force" is applied to thé lever P, motion is communicated through the rod Q to the brake B, which brake acts' on the periphery of one of the two supporting or carrying-wheels P, the axle -of which, o, is attached to á hinged board G, and by the action of the brake the hinged board is changed from a horizontal position to a vertical positipn, and the effect is. to facilitate the operation of lifting the ploughs out of the ground. The first claim of the original patent covers only the combination of the three specific devices — the lever P, the rod Q, and the-brake B. The first claim of the reissue calls the brake B “ friction-clutch mechanism,” and calls the lever P and the rod' Q “means for engaging and disengaging the latter with the ground or carrying-wheel,” and then claims the combination of four things — (1) friction-clutch mechanism; (2) means for engaging and disengaging it with the ground or carrying-wheel ; (3) a swing-a^de; (4) a ground or carrying-wheel.

The .hinged board G of the plaintiff’s original patent is ten or twelve .inches wide, and at each end of it is a spindle for one of the two ground or carrying-wheels to run on, the spindles being in line with one edge of the hinged board. The forward ends of the plough-beams are attached by. joints to what is the back edge of the hinged board while that board is horizontal, so that when it comes to be vertical, by the action of the brake and the forward movement of the team, the, forward ends of the plough-beams are raised in height a distance equal to the width of the hinged board, lifting the ploughs.

The. defendants’ machine is thus described in the opinion of the Circuit Court, and the description is conceded by the counsel for the plaintiff to be a fair one : “ The defendants-’ machine is awheel or sulky plough, with abeut or cranked iron axle, upon which the plough-beams are pivoted at about two-thirds of the distance from the forward end to the coulter, so that the plough is nearly balanced upon the axle or crank, and the arrangement of the mechanism is such, that when the plough is running or operating in the ground, the crank part is in a horizontal position, and, when "it is desired to raise the ploughs out of the ground, the crank is turned upward towards a vertical position, Avhereby the forward ends of the beam are raised until the point of the plough funs out of the ground. After the forward end of the beam has risen to a certain point," it strikes a stop, so that, when the crank has assumed a vertical position, the plough is balanced across the crank part of the axle, thus sustaining the plough at the height above the ground of the Orank when, in a vertical position. This turning of the crank-axle, so as to hit the plough, is accomplished by a friction band or brake, which is made to engage with an inner extension of the hub of one of the carrying-wheels, so that, as the wheel moves forward, it causes the crank-axle to turn upwards from a horizontal to a vertical position.”

The Circuit Court was of opinion, that, if the state of the art was such as to entitle Davenport to a broad claim for any device by which the plough is lif ted by the power of the team-tllrough a brake or friction-clutch, the defendants’ machine would infringe. But. the court found that, prior to Davenport, devices had been used in agricultural implements for utilizing by means of a brake the motion of the carrying-wheel, through a crank-axle, in raising operative parts of the machine from the ground, which devices were so alike in structure and so analogous in use to those of Davenport, as to require his claims to be limited to his specific devices. In view of those prior devices the Court held that the defendants’ friction-band could not be regarded as the same means for engaging and disengaging the carrying-wheel and the axle as the brake of Davenport; and that the defendants’ crank-axle wras not the plaintiff’s hinged board. In these views we concur. The reissue was applied for more than thirteen years after the original was granted, and after the defendants had begun to make machines of the pattern now complained of. The original patent did not make a swing-axle and a carrying-wheel elements in the combination of the first claim of that patent. The reissue was evidently taken to cover the defendants’ machine, which did not infringe the first claim of the original patent, because it did not have the Davenport brake E. No mistake or inadvertence is shown. The plaintiff, in his testimony as a witness, assigns as a reason for the reissue, that he thought there “ was a mistake and a deficiency in the patent; ” that he did not consider that other manufacturers respected it; that he considered it deficient because it applied the friction-brake to the periphery of the wheel; .and that he believed the patent was entitled to cover different friction-clutch devices, so as to be a better protection' against in-fringers.

Without pursuing the subject further, we are of opinion that, within numerous decisions of’ this court, the reissued patent is invalid, as respects its first claim.

Decree affirmed..