Woodward v. Boston Lasting Mach. Co., 61.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1894
• Docket Number: 61.
• Citation: 60 F. 283
• Parties: WOODWARD et al. v. BOSTON LASTING MACH. CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

60 F. 283

WOODWARD et al. v. BOSTON LASTING MACH. CO. ^[1]

No. 61.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

March 5, 1894

George O. G. Coale, for appellants.

James E. Maynadier, for appellee.

Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and NELSON, District Judge.

COLT Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought against Erastus Woodward and others for infringement of a patent (No. 248,544) granted to said Woodward October 18, 1881, and duly assigned to the plaintiff, the Boston Lasting Machine Company. The invention is for a tacking machine which will drive only one nail, and then stop, and which is actuated by the pressure of a jack. The machine covers the combination of three elements: (1) Fastening-driving mechanism; (2) start and stop motions whereby the machine is automatically started and stopped after one tack is driven; and (3) a jack for presenting the work to be operated upon to the nozzle of the tacker, and provided with contrivances adapted to press the work against the nozzle,--these parts being so organized that the act of placing the work in proper position for receiving the fastening by means of the jack starts the driver, drives the fastening, and stops the machine. The specification says:

'The act of placing the work in proper position for receiving the fastening starts the fastening-driving mechanism, drives the fastening, and stops the mechanism and, as the work is presented to the nozzle of the fastening-driving machine by means of a foot treadle, it will also be observed that the act of depressing the treadle not only places the work in proper position to receive the fastening, but also causes the fastening-driving machine to be actuated.'

The defenses relied upon are the invalidity of the patent, and noninfringement.

As to the first defense, it is contended that the patent is void for want of patentable novelty, in view of the state of the art at the time, and especially by reason of a prior patent granted to said Woodward August 30, 1881, or about three weeks before the date of his application for the patent in suit. In this prior patent, it is said, Woodward describes the real improvement which he made over tacking machines which then existed, such as the Holt and Williams and Woodward & Brock machines, which improvement consisted in the automatic start movement in a tacking machine, which drives only one nail, and then stops. It is said that the only improvement found in his patent in suit which is not contained in his earlier patent is the addition of a jack which was old and well known, and, further, that Woodward suggests in his earlier patent the use of such jack, in the following language, found in the specification:

'I herein describe my invention as being operated by means of the work held by the operator, or by a jack which is moved by the operator, although, of course, I do not confine myself to this especial manner of operation, as the machine may be started by hand or by foot, or in any other desirable way.'

Whatever force there may be in these suggestions, it does not seem to us that Woodward is at...