Matthews v. Shoneberger

• Decision Date: 01 January 1880
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. SHONEBERGER and another.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

4 F. 635

MATTHEWS v. SHONEBERGER and another.

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

1880

A. V Briesen, for plaintiff.

G. V N. Baldwin, for defendants.

BLATCHFORD C.J.

This suit is brought on two patents. One of them is a re-issue no. 2,386, granted to the plaintiff, October 30, 1866, for an improvement in bottle stoppers, the original patent having been granted to Albert Albertson, as inventor, August 26, 1862. This patent has expired. The specification says: 'This invention consists in a stopper which always remains in the bottle, and which readily permits the introduction of any fluid into the bottle, and at the same time effectually prevents any discharge of it except when desired, and which is particularly adapted to bottles containing soda-water, wines, and all fluids having a generating fixed air, as the greater the pressure from such cause the closer and tighter is the stopper. An important feature of the invention, which distinguishes it from all previously-applied stoppers which remain in the bottle, is that it is inserted into the bottle through the neck without requiring the use of a separate or larger opening, or detachable cap, to permit its introduction. * * * The stopper represented * * * consists of a small metallic or other stem, A, upon the lower end of which is fixed a rigid button or disk, B, which is made of such a size as just to pass through the smallest part of the mouth or neck of the bottle. Close above the button or disk is secured to the stem, A, a smaller rigid ring or disk, C. Between these two disks is placed and held fast a disk or diaphragm of India rubber, felt, leather, or cloth, D, or any yielding substance, which should be somewhat larger in its external diameter than the disk, B,-- say generally of a diameter about as large again, and larger than the lower part of the interior of the neck of the bottle. To a stop or shoulder on the upper part of the stem, A, which is long enough to project above the mouth of the bottle or vessel when the valve is in contact with its seat, there is attached or applied a helical wire spring, E, which covers the stem, A, for some little distance, and which need only be stiff enough to hold up firmly the stem, A, and cause the rubber or other diaphragm, D, to fit closely against the inside neck of the bottle.'

The specification then describes two ways of supporting the spring at its bottom. One is to enlarge the mouth or neck of the bottle from the bottom of the spring upward so as to form an edge or shoulder sufficient to support the spring. The other is not to enlarge the neck, but to clasp over the top of the neck two or three metallic strips, which extend down within the neck as far as the spring is to reach, and have their bottoms turned over the lower coil of the spring and thus give it a sufficient support. The specification proceeds: 'The stopper is placed in the bottle by simply inserting it in the neck and pressing the spring, E, until the rubber or flexible disk or diaphragm, D, has passed below the narrowest part or place, a, of the neck. As the ring or disk C is considerably smaller than the disk B, the flexible disk or diaphragm D will fold up and around C as the stem, A, is passed down through the neck, and the stopper will thus easily pass into the bottle. But, when once the stopper has been so placed in the bottle, as the disk B is of nearly the size of the opening in the neck, any effort of the spring, E, or of any kind, to draw or push up the standard, A, presses the flexible disk D between the bottle and the bottom, B, and effectually prevents its coming out; and the greater the pressure from within against the bottom of the stopper, the closer will the contact be of the parts B and D against the sides of the bottle. When it is desired to open the bottle to discharge its contents, a bent instrument, such as is shown in Fig. 2, or any one fitted to accomplish the same purpose, pressing down the stopper, may be made use of.'

The first two claims of the patent are as follows: 'First, a stopper which is inserted through the mouth of the bottle, or other vessel, and which, when inserted, is closed perfectly tight against a seat found within the bottle itself by pressure in an upward direction; second, a prolongation of such stopper by means of a central stem, rod, or other extension of the stopper in an outward direction, beyond the seat of the valve, for the purpose of affording facility for opening the stopper, or that of receiving the upward pressure of a spring, or other means of drawing the valve to its seat, substantially as herein specified.'

The stopper and bottle used by the defendants is that shown in 'Codd No. 2.' It is not proved that they used any other. In the defendants' arrangement, the stopper is a sphere of glass in a receptacle at the base of the neck of the bottle, which receptacle communicates with the body of the bottle below, by an orifice which is to small to allow the sphere to pass down. The mouth of the bottle above the sphere is too small to allow the sphere to pass out above. The sphere is loose, and there is no spring. In the inside of the mouth is an annular groove, in which a ring of India rubber is inserted, with which the sphere, when it is to act as a stopper, comes in contact, and against which, as a seat, it is pressed to make a tight joint by the upward action of the gas in the liquid below. The receptacle referred to is of greater diameter than the neck above it, and of less diameter than the bottle below it. The bottle is opened by inserting the finger or some pushing instrument in the mouth, and pressing the sphere downward, causing it to leave its seat, and allowing the liquid to be poured out. The sphere, when the bottle is emptied, rests on the bottom of the receptacle referred to, over the orifice which leads into the body of the bottle.

It is alleged that the first and second claims of this patent are infringed by Codd No. 2. As the sphere in the bottle cannot pass out through the mouth, and as it is not inserted through the mouth of the finished bottle, it is put in before the bottle is finished. The bottle is made with the receptacle and the neck, and then the sphere is put in through the neck and then a ring of melted glass is put on the outer end of the neck to form the finished mouth. The first claim of the re-issue does not contain the words 'substantially as specified,' but it must be construed as if those words were in it. Every claim of a patent has reference to the descriptive part of the specification. In the plaintiff's bottle, the stopper can pass in through the smallest part of the mouth of the finished bottle. This is dwelt on in the specification as 'an important feature of the invention,' and is made an integral part of the first claim. This feature does not exist in Codd No. 2. The stopper in that cannot pass in through the mouth of the finished bottle. The first claim is not a claim to any mechanism; but, if not a claim to a function, is a claim to a mode of operation. It amounts to a claim to inserting a stopper through the mouth of a bottle, and then pressing it upwards till it is closed tight against a seat inside. It seems to be intended to cover every form of stopper and any form...