Ausable-Horse-Nail Co. v. New Haven Horse-Nail Co.

• Decision Date: 22 August 1887
• Citation: 32 F. 92
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: AUSABLE HORSE-NAIL CO. v. NEW HAVEN HORSE-NAIL CO. and others. SAME v. NEW HAVEN NAIL CO. and others.

32 F. 92

AUSABLE HORSE-NAIL CO. v. NEW HAVEN HORSE-NAIL CO. and others.

SAME v. NEW HAVEN NAIL CO. and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.

August 22, 1887

This is an action for alleged infringements of letters patent No 139,332, granted to the National Horse-Nail Company, as assignee of Robert Ross, May 27, 1873, and No. 177,237 granted to Nelson W. Goodrich, May 9, 1876, for an improved machine for beveling and trimming horseshoe nails. Complainants charged that the alleged inventions in these two patents were capable of conjoint use in one machine, and that the defendants had so used them, and prayed for an injunction and an accounting.

The Ross patent described a machine for beveling and trimming the points of horseshoe nails, and contained eight claims of novelty; but, under the complainant's proof, the infringement was restricted to the first claim, which was for a combination of a constantly revolving feed-screw, and a bar parallel to it, and point beveling dies, so arranged that while the operation on the dies was intermittent, their movement was so timed as to operate on the nail blanks without practically stopping them in their passage through the machine.

The Goodrich patent also described an improved machine for beveling and trimming horseshoe nails, containing three claims; but by complainant's proof the infringement was restricted to the second claim, which was for a carrier consisting of a horizontal and intermittent carrier ring resting on a stationary ring, and provided with teeth projecting downward below its lower surface, serving to retain it in its place on the stationary ring, and also adapted for carrying and holding the nails to the dies. The defendants' machine consisted also of an intermittent carrier ring, operating in a horizontal plane, but was not provided with the downward projecting teeth, and the beveling machine or dies operated while the nail blanks were held at rest. The defendants, in their answer and proofs, claimed that, in view of the prior state of the art, and the language of the specifications, each of the claims in this controversy is restricted to the particular elements of the combination therein recited, and deny that they employ these particular elements.

Gifford & Brown, for complainants.

Mr. Mitchell and E. H. Rogers, for defendants.

BLATCHFORD Justice.

Only claim 1 of the Ross patent, No. 139,332, is alleged to have...