Hallock v. Davison

• Decision Date: 19 March 1901
• Docket Number: 6,818.
• Citation: 107 F. 482
• Parties: HALLOCK et al. v. DAVISON et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

107 F. 482

HALLOCK et al. v. DAVISON et al.

No.6,818.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

March 19, 1901

This is an equity suit in the usual form, seeking an injunction and accounting for an infringement of letters patent, No 600,782, for improvements in weeding machines, granted to the complainants March 15, 1898. The weeder of the patent consists of a frame supported about 20 inches above the ground by flexible and elastic teeth secured to the frame at the upper end and with their lower ends resting upon the ground. The frame is provided with guide handles and is intended to be drawn by a horse. The upper portion of the tooth is flat and the lower portion, which does the weeding is round in cross-section. The teeth are bowed rearwardly and have a slight rearward trail to prevent them from digging into the ground and to enable them to crush small lumps and permit the operator readily to remove rubbish which may have collected around the teeth. The rearward trail is not sufficient to interfere with the fore and aft vibration of the teeth which are sufficiently flexible when they strike a plant to pass around it without doing injury. When in operation the teeth are given a delicate, tremulous vibration, analogous to the motion of the human hand when engaged in weeding. In the specification the patentees assert that machines of the class to which their weeder belongs have been in use for many years and that it has been demonstrated that the teeth thereof must be small and round in section and long and flexible so that when in use they will not dig deeply into the soil or injure the young plants which are being cultivated. The lower parts of the teeth are preferably, substantially, straight and so arranged that they incline rearwardly somewhat, in order that they shall trail upon rather than dig into the soil. No form of tooth which lacks any one of these features has been found to operate satisfactorily and these characteristics are said to differentiate this class of machines from harrows and cultivators, whose primary object is to break up and turn over the soil and which only operate between the rows of a growing crop. The weeder operates not only between the rows of plants but also in the rows. The frame of a weeder must be high enough above the ground to pass over a crop and for that reason great difficulty is experienced with the teeth because if they are made small enough to work well they lack in strength and break or bend permanently, whereas if made sufficiently strong to avoid these objections they are too large and stiff to operate well as weeders.

The specification says further: 'Our invention consists of a novel form of weeder tooth which possesses all of the advantageous characteristics and requirements of the weeder tooth or finger as heretofore developed and at the same time possesses advantageous features not heretofore attained and which will be presently pointed out. * * * In the drawings, A represents the weeder tooth or finger as a whole. It consists of two parts the lower, a, of which is small and round in cross-section substantially straight, and inclined to the rear and is intended to operate upon the soil and among the plants, and the upper part, a', which is flat and thin, to give flexibility and at the same time the necessary strength. * * * The tooth thus formed is found to work admirably as a weeder, having the flexibility and elasticity required and by reason of the shape of the lower part not tending to injure the plants being worked, while it has sufficient strength to support the frame of the machine and is not liable to break or become permanently bent while in use. * * * The teeth are preferably so arranged upon the frame that they are equal distances apart transversely of the machine.'

The patent contains six claims only two of which, however, are involved, namely, the first and the third. They are as follows: '(1) A flexible tooth for a weeder having a substantially straight, trailing lower end portion, substantially round in cross-section, and small in size, adapted to engage with the soil, and a flat spring yielding upper portion adapted to be secured to the frame of the machine, substantially as and for the purposes hereinbefore set forth.' '(3) The combination with the frame, of the teeth supported thereby, each tooth being adapted to rest upon the ground and thereby support the frame, and constructed to have a small round substantially straight and rearwardly-inclined lower portion, a, and a flat spring yielding upper portion, a', which is secured to the frame, substantially as set forth.'

Infringement is not disputed, the only defenses being lack of novelty and invention.

Marcellus Bailey, for complainants.

Richard R. Martin, for defendants.

COXE District Judge (after stating the facts).

The proof establishes without contradiction that the complainants' weeder is an exceedingly popular and successful implement. Indeed, it seems to be the only entirely satisfactory weeder ever produced, although the attempt to make such a tool has extended over a period of 15 years. The defendants have themselves contributed to the cogent testimony establishing the excellence of the weeder by copying it in every essential detail. This being the general situation the court is naturally disinclined to relax the rule which makes the patent prima facie disinclined to relax the rule which makes the patent prima facie evidence of its validity and casts the burden of showing the contrary upon the defendants. Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U.S. 689, 695, 6 Sup.Ct. 970, 29 L.Ed. 1017. Unquestionably the best reference is the patent granted over half a century ago to Charles Carlisle for a horse rake. To this proposition all agree. It is not pretended that this patent is an anticipation, but it is argued with force and ingenuity that it required no exercise of the inventive faculty to place the Carlisle tooth upon a weeding machine. It is asserted, erroneously it is thought, that the complainants have done nothing more. The Carlisle rake seems to be an exceedingly clumsy and inoperative machine. There is no proof that it was ever used and it is not easy to see how it could be used to accomplish any useful purpose. The specification says:

'The rake-head or cross-beam G supports and carries the rake-teeth. They consist of a series of bent springs, O O, etc., each of which is firmly secured to it, as seen in Figs. 2 and 3, the latter representing a vertical and central section of the cross-beam and one of the springs and its socket, and a wooden tooth inserted in it. Each of said sockets is intended to receive and support a rake-tooth, c, made of wood or other proper material, which is properly shaped and driven firmly into the socket or tube, and when worn out or injured may be removed and have a new one substituted in its place. * * * When a piece of ground is to be raked over the attendant applies his hands to the handles of the rake-head and forces them and the head down, so as to cause the rake-points to enter the soil. The manner in which the

...