Richmond v. Atwood

• Citation: 48 F. 910
• Parties: RICHMOND v. ATWOOD.
• Decision Date: 02 February 1892
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

48 F. 910

RICHMOND v. ATWOOD.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

February 2, 1892

Frederick P. Fish, William K. Richardson, and James J. Storrow, Jr. for appellant.

Payson E. Tucker, for appellee.

Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and CARPENTER and ALDRICH, District judges.

COLT J.

This suit is brought for infringement of letters patent No 378,861, granted to Benjamin S. Atwood, March 6, 1888, for improvements in hinges for boxes and chests. The object of the invention, as set out in the specification, is the production of 'a hinge which, when applied to a box or chest, will present a smooth face, flush with the surface of the box or chest, with no part of it projecting beyond the surface. ' The hinge is composed of two leaves, attached to the inside of the box and cover. Portions of these leaves are turned at right angles, the parts so turned being equal to the thickness of the cover or side of the box to which the hinge is applied. At the ends of the bent parts of the leaves are the knuckles, which lie in places cut in the side of the box and of the cover. The two parts of the hinge are united by a plate having a knuckle at each end, and by pins which pass through the knuckles on the leaves and plate, and so form a double hinge. The plate is so constructed as to permit the leaf on the cover of the box to bear against its inner side when the box is closed. When the box is open the cover will turn completely over and lie against the side of the box. The claim is as follows:

'A box-hinge, composed of the parts d and e, to be placed, respectively, on the inside of the box and of the cover, provided with end-pieces turned at a right angle to their main portions, having knuckles f f, fitting, respectively, into places in the side of the box and of the cover, and united by the plate g and pins h h, said plate g being placed on the outside of the box, and so arranged as to furnish a bearing to the cover when it is closed, and to permit the cover to be removed entirely from the top of the box when it is open, substantially as above described.'

The answer sets up several defenses, but only two are relied upon, namely, want of invention, and non-infringement.

In analyzing the Atwood patent in the light of the prior state of the art, we find that every element which enters into the combination set forth in the claim was old and well known at the date of the invention. Single hinges, composed of leaves knuckles, and pin, were old. Duplex or double hinges, composed of leaves, knuckles, pins, and a plate uniting the two parts, were old. The bending of the leaf to conform to the size of the edge of the box or cover was old. It is also abundantly shown, by an examination of the many forms of hinge put in evidence, that in the details of construction, such as turning the knuckles one way or another, or turning the plate in any particular way, there would be no invention, and the Atwood patent does not seek to cover any particular form of construction in these respects. It is also admitted that bearings were old, and that there was no invention, considered by itself, in the bearing of the cover-leaf against the plate when the box is closed. The prominent feature of the Atwood hinge consists in turning the leaves at right angles, as described in the patent. But, in our opinion, there was no patentable novelty in merely bending the leaf of a hinge to conform to the edge of the...