Wollensak v. Sargent

• Decision Date: 18 January 1890
• Citation: 41 F. 53
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: WOLLENSAK v. SARGENT et al., (two cases.)

41 F. 53

WOLLENSAK v. SARGENT et al., (two cases.)

United States Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.

January 18, 1890

The third claim of reissued letters patent No. 9,307 is as follows:

'(3) The guide, G, arranged above the junction of the lifting arm and upright rod, in combination with the prolonged rod h, the guide, G, and arm, A, substantially as and for the purpose specified.'

The first and second claims of No. 191,088 are as follows:

'(1) The sliding block, C, carrying the spring locking bolt, g in combination with the fixed guide bar, B, connecting rod or rods, h, and the operating cord or cords, f, substantially as described, for the purpose specified. (2) The combination of the operating cord, f, with the spring locking bolt, g, and the sliding block, C, to which the sash is connected, arranged as described, so that the act of pulling the cord backward shall disengage the locking bolt from the bar, B, and a continued downward pull upon the same cord shall raise the sash, substantially as described.'

Ephraim Banning and Charles R. Ingersoll, for complainant.

John K. Beach and Benj. F. Thurston, for defendants.

SHIPMAN J.

These are two bills in equity, (Nos. 585 and 587,) which are respectively founded upon the alleged infringement of the third claim of reissued letters patent No. 9,307, dated July 20, 1880, and of the first and second claims of letters patent No. 191,088, dated May 22, 1877, each of said patents having been issued to John F. Wollensak. The original of reissue No. 9,307 was dated March 11, 1873, and was for an improvement in transom lifters. No. 191,088 is for an improved sky-light lifter. Motions for preliminary injunctions were brought in these two cases, and were denied. 33 F. 840. The opinion upon the motions states the claims which are alleged to have been infringed, and other facts in regard to the character of the patented improvements, which need not be repeated.

The invention which was embraced in reissue No. 9,307 was declared by the supreme court in Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 87, 5 S.Ct. 1132, to be 'the combination with a transom, its lifting arm and operating rod, of a guide for the upper end of the operating rod, prolonged beyond the junction with the lifting arm, so as to prevent the operating rod from being bent or displaced by the weight of the transom. ' This construction was based upon the state of the art at the date of the alleged invention, which was described in both the original and reissued patent as follows:

'Transom lifters have heretofore been constructed with a long upright rod or handle jointed at its upper end to a lifting arm, which extends to and is connected with the side or edge of the transom sash, the sash being opened or closed by a vertical movement of the long rod. When thus constructed, the upright rod is liable to be bent by the weight of the transom, owing to the want of support at or near the point of junction between the long rod and the lifting arm. The object of my invention is to remedy this difficulty, and to such end it consists in providing the proper support, or support and guide, for the upper end of the lifting rod during its vertical movements and while at rest.'

The complainant introduced in evidence the file-wrapper and contents of the appeal to the examiners in chief in the matter of this reissue. In the patentee's statement of his case, his attorney says that, 'prior to Wollensak's invention, transom lifters had been composed of a long vertical rod, arranged to move through guides on the door casing, its upper end projecting a considerable distance above the upper guide, and jointed to the transom by a pivoted connecting rod. An example of the lifter is shown on the transoms of the examiner in chief's rooms. ' He then states, more at length than in the specification, that the defect in such a lifter was the liability of the rod to be bent by the weight of the transom, and that the remedy was a guide for the upper end of the rod. It thus appears that, when the patent was before the patent-office, the guide above the junction of the operating rod with the lifting arm and the prolongation of the rod beyond the junction were represented as constituting the improvement.

The complainant contended upon this hearing that the patentee was the first inventor of transom lifters who achieved success and was, in fact, the pioneer in the art; that the invention was really much more than the addition of the upper guide, and consisted also of lower supports and a locking device; and that, in addition to the transom, the lifting arm, operating rod, and guides for its upper rod, which are mentioned in the claim as the elements of the combination, the guide near the lower end of the rod, provided...