Harris v. Allen

• Decision Date: 15 January 1883
• Citation: Harris v. Allen, 15 F. 106 (N.D. Ill. 1883)
• Parties: HARRIS and others v. ALLEN and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

15 F. 106

HARRIS and others v. ALLEN and others.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

January 15, 1883

Jesse Cox, Jr., for complainants.

H Harrison, for defendants.

BLODGETT J.

This is a bill to restrain the infringement, by defendant, of patent No. 125,250, dated April 2, 1872, issued to Sidney B Andrews, for an 'improvement in spring bed bottoms.'Complainants claim title by mesne assignments from Andrews and no question is made as to their title.The bed bottom in question is described by Andrews as a 'suspension spiral spring bed bottom,' and is said in the specifications to consist of a number of spiral wire springs connected together by links, and suspended within a rectangular frame by means of suspension wires, passing around the bars which form the frame, and attached to the rows of springs and rings next the frame bars.The patentee says: 'My invention consists of five different parts-- First, the wooden frame; second spiral springs; third, rings; fourth, hook links; and, fifth, suspension wires. ' The claim is: 'The combination of the several parts of my invention, namely, the springs, B, rings, C, and links, D, with the suspension wire, E, and frame, A, so as to form a suspension bed bottom, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.' The novelty of the invention is not denied, and the only question raised is, does the bed bottom made by defendant, as shown in the proof, infringe the Andrews patent?The defendants' bed bottom is constructed with an iron frame, made of gas-pipe of about three-fourths of an inch external diameter, and has no rings, but is made up wholly of a congeries of spiral wire springs connected together by hook links, so as to form a web or surface for the mattress to rest upon, and suspension wires which suspend or hold within the frame the fabric made by the springs and hooks.It appears from the proof that in a portion of the beds made by the defendant the suspension wires simply pass around the outside of the frame bars or rails, so as to hook onto the top and bottom of the external rows of springs; but in most of the defendants' beds the suspension wires were coiled loosely around the rod or pipe forming the frame, so that the two ends of the suspension wires are spiral springs acting from the central coil around the frame.Defendants claim (1) that they do not infringe, because they do not use a 'wooden frame;'(2) that they do not use rings; (3) that they do not use the suspension wires shown by the complainants' patent.

I think there can be no doubt that Andrews has limited himself to the use of a wooden frame as an essential element of his combination.In the language already quoted he says: 'My invention consists of five different parts: First, a wooden frame. ' Again he says:

'A is a wooden frame within which my invention is constructed and suspended.This wooden frame should be made of strips of hard, stiff wood, about three inches wide and one and one-half inches thick.* * * The suspension wires, E, are held in their proper places on the frame by means of the small wire staples, F, which are sunk into the frame, A, so as to include the suspension wires between the legs

...