Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Deisler
| Citation | 46 F. 854 |
| Parties | ENTERPRISE MANUF'G CO. v. DEISLER. ENTERPRISE MANUF'G CO. v. WANAMAKER. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1891 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Charles Howson, for complainant.
Horace Pettit, for respondents.
The suits are for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of letters patent No. 271,398, issued to John G. Baker, January 30 1883, for 'Improvements in mechanism to cut up plastic or yielding substances. ' The facts in each are the same and they are, therefore, considered together.
The defense, as set up in the answer, is twofold: First, that the patent is invalid; and, second, that it is not infringed. The first was involved and fully considered, in a suit by this plaintiff against Sargeant & Co., by the circuit court for Connecticut, in 1883, and the patent sustained. The question was examined and an opinion filed, on motion for preliminary injunction; and again more fully and elaborately considered on final hearing. The first of these opinions is found in 28 F. 185, and the second in 34 F. 134. We are asked to reconsider the question, on the grounds that the decision is not binding upon us, and that further anticipatory evidence is produced. As respects the first it is only necessary to say that a proper regard for the interest of suitors requires that the decisions shall be given controlling effect. The importance of uniformity in the law, as administered in the several circuits, is too great to be disregarded, even where the judges may differ in opinion. Conflicting decisions on the same patent would be an intolerable evil. The rule in this circuit is well settled. Manufacturing Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 30 F. 625; Mayo v. The Chelmsford, 34 F. 399; Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 9 Fed.Rep. 43; Zinsser v. Krueger, 45 F. 574; Cary v. Manufacturing Co., 31 F. 344. The question of validity, therefore, is open only so far as respects the additional evidence introduced; and this does not require extended discussion.
In the suit against Sargeant & Co. the court decided that John G Baker was the first to invent a machine for cutting plastic or yielding substances, in which all preliminary cutting devices were eliminated and the sole reliance for cutting was upon a knife or other cutting device, operating in conjunction with a perforated plate, at the points of discharge from the casing, and in which there was no intentional disturbance of the substance, (other than to force it forward,) before reaching the plate. Upon these characteristics the court distinguished the Baker machine from all others in previous use. We do not find anything in the additional evidence to justify a different conclusion. Other devices are shown; but they add nothing to the force of the defense made in that case. What was there said in distinguishing Baker's cutter from the devices set up may justly be applied to the additional devices shown here. The Dollman and the Miles machines, which were before Judge SHIPMAN, seem quite as much like the complainant's as are any of the additional devices set up. The Baker machine of patent 220,112, first introduced here, is not intended to cut 'yielding substances,' nor anything else; and is not adapted to such a purpose. It is a 'press' designed for extracting juice from fruits alone. Resemblances may be found in some of its parts and combinations, to the complaint's machine. It has a casing, a forcing screw, and what may be called a perforated plate or sieve. These elements are not, however, combined as in the complainant's machine; and the complainant's knife operating in conjunction with the perforated plate, is wanting. Intended for different purposes the organization of the two machines is dissimilar, and neither is capable of doing the work for which the other is designed.
The Brethon machine of the English patent of 1887, is intended for 'grinding, mingling, melaxating, and freeing clay' from hard substances, in preparing it for the manufacture of title, brick, and so forth. It, also, is unsuited for the use to which the complainant's is applied; and is hardly more like it than the 'press' referred to. It, also, has a casing, a screw with blades or arms above, and a perforated plate below, connected with a scraper which operates upon its under surface. It has not however, the screw or other forcing mechanism, described in the complainant's patent, and operating in conjunction with the casing, as shown in his machine. Neither the screw, nor the blades or arms above, bear such relation to the casing, as would render them effective for the purposes of the complainant's forcing device. Nor has it the complainant's knife, operating in conjunction with the perforated plate. The machine was not intended for cutting purposes; and such a device, would, therefore, be out of place in it. The perforated plate is employed simply to afford means of escape for the softened clay, while the scraper is employed to remove hard substances that may be deposited on its surface. Mr. Brethon calls the latter instrument, indiscriminately, a 'knife,' a 'blade,' and a 'scraper.' It is, however, a scraper,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Taylor
......In disposing,. upon final hearing, of the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Deisler, 46 F. 854, Judge Butler, with the concurrence. of Judge Acheson, acted upon the rule to which I ......
- Stonemetz Printers' Mach Co. v. Brown Folding-Mach Co.