Galt v. Parlin & Orendorf Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1894
• Docket Number: 95.
• Parties: GALT et al. v. PARLIN & ORENDORF CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

60 F. 417

GALT et al. v. PARLIN & ORENDORF CO.

No. 95.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

February 9, 1894

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Southern Division.

Bill by Thomas A. Galt and others against the Parlin & Orendorf Company to restrain the alleged infringement of a patent. Defendant obtained a decree. 52 F. 749. Complainants appeal.

The case is well stated in the following opinion of Judge Blodgett, delivered in the court below, and reported in 52 F 749:

This is a bill in equity for an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of patent No. 197,545, granted November 27, 1877, to Jay S. Corbin, for an improvement in wheel harrows, reissued June 24, 1879, No. 8,765. The inventor says in his specifications: 'My invention relates to the improvement of that class of machines known as 'wheel' or 'disk' harrows, in which the disks are arranged in two or more gangs upon horizontal rotating shafts; and has for its object the construction of the machine in such manner as to adapt the gangs to follow the even surface of the ground; also, to provide for the easy and rapid setting of the gangs at any desired angle to the line of draught while in motion or at rest, and holding the same when set. * * * Also, to provide a ready means of setting the gangs at different angles relative to the line of draught.' The reissued patent has eleven claims, but infringement is charged only of the fifth, sixth, and seventh. The original claims relating to the part of the harrow in controversy are: '(5) The combination with a gang of rotating harrow disks of a lever connected to the gangs for setting the same at an angle with the line of the draught, substantially as described. (6) The combination with a gang of rotating harrow disks of a lever for setting the same at an angle with the line of draught, and a rack and dog for holding the disks in position when set, substantially as described.' The fifth, sixth, and seventh claims of the reissue are: '(5) The combination, in a wheel harrow, of the following elements, viz.: a draft frame or a draft plank projecting laterally from the tongue, disk gangs pivoted to the draft frame or draft plank, and a set lever mounted on the tongue and connected with the disk gangs between the points at which said gangs are connected with the draft frame or draft plank, substantially as set forth. (6) The combination, substantially as set forth, in a wheel harrow of the following elements, viz.: a tongue, a draft frame or draft plank, a lever mounted on the tongue, and rods connected with the levers and the metal bearings which support the inner ends of the disk gangs. (7) The combination, substantially as set forth, in a wheel harrow of the following elements, viz.: a tongue, a draft plank or draft frame projecting laterally from the tongue, disk gangs pivoted to the draft plank or frame, a lever mounted on the tongue connected with the inner end of the disk gangs, and a rack and dog for holding the disks in proper position when set.' It will be seen from these claims that the only controversy in the case is over what is called in the specifications the 'set lever,' by which the angle at which the disks shall cut the ground is regulated. This lever consists of a vertical arm pivoted to the tongue forward of the driver's seat, the lower end of which extends below the tongue, and from which two rods extend, one to the inner end of each of the gang shafts or axles, so that by the movement of the lower end of this lever forward or backward the axle of the gangs is regulated. There is also upon the top of the tongue a rack or sector, with a dog working in it to hold the gangs at the required angle. The defenses relied upon are want of novelty in this lever device, and noninfringement. The proof shows that this patentee is only an improver, and a late improver at that, of this class of agricultural implements that in September, 1859, a patent was issued to S. G. Randall for a disk harrow embodying all the elements of complainant's machine, except that no set lever for changing the angle of the gangs is shown in the patent. The proof, however, abundantly shows that, in constructing his harrows in accordance with his patent, Randall had a lever for adjusting the angle of the disk gangs which, although operating substantially in the same way and performing the some work as that done by the complainant's lever, was not mounted upon the tongue or frame of the machine, but was so placed that it must be operated by a person standing or walking behind the machine. There is also in proof a patent granted to E. C. Winters, in May, 1875, on a revolving cultivator, which is a machine analogous in its use to that of the complainant, in which a set lever is mounted on the tongue as shown, which operates to change the running depths of the spades, or cutters, which are shown in that device. In several other machines referred to in the testimony the regulation of the angles of the disk gangs by means of rods and levers is shown. So far as the terms of the claims on which infringement is charged in this patent are concerned, they are, it seems to me, completely met by the old Randall lever of 1863, applied to the harrow shown in the patent of 1859; that is, Randall had a combination with a gang of rotating harrow disks of a lever connected to the gangs for setting the same at an angle with the line of draught, and its operation was substantially as described, but it was not located in the same place; and undoubtedly it was more convenient to locate this lever, which Randall has introduced into the organization, upon the tongue than it was to locate it where Randall had it, at the rear of his frame; but, as it seems to me, no inventive talent was called into action to apply the lever shown in Winters' patent to the complainant's gang. It seems to me that this patent is but for an aggregation of parts. The idea of changing the angle of the disk frames is Randall's the idea of doing that by means of a lever is Randall's. The lever used by Randall is substantially, in its mode of operation and effect, the same as that used by complainant; and simply to relocate that lever, or place upon the tongue of complainant's machine the Winters lever, does not seem to have required any inventive talent. It was merely a mechanical act to transfer Winters' lever to the tongue of complainant's machine. That it was an improvement upon the machine may be admitted, but that it was such an improvement as will sustain the patent I do not think, because this class of machines, according to the proofs, has always been operated, so far as the angles of the disk harrows are concerned, to a greater or less extent by means of a lever. Such a lever for shifting or changing the seed shoes and hoes of the seeding machine from a straight to a zigzag line is shown in the Davis patent of 1868; and the same device is also shown in the Schmidt patent of ...