ELECTRIC GASLIGHTING CO. V. FULLER.
1003
according to the United States weigher's return attached to the entry and part thereof, the government would be entitled to a balance of unpaid duty on a final liquidation of the entry of $198.60. At the close of the testimony a motion was made by the United States attorney for a direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintUfs for the full amount of the penalty of the bond, viz. the sum of $800. The defendants moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that no damage or loss to the United States had been proved under the bond; and that no additional duties could be recovered in this suit. Both motions were denied by the court; and a verdict was thereupon directed in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of $198.60, and interest to the date of the trial. Verdict for plaintiffs accordingly.
ELECTRIC GASLIGHTING CO. et aI. v. FULLFJR et aL (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. January 9, 1894.) No.73.
1.
PATENTS-INFHINGEMENT-MECHANICAL DETAIl,S.
A patent which is limited, both by its language and the prior art, to mere mechanical details, is not infringed by a device which, comparing mechanical details with mechanical details, shows a different result, and methods substantially unlike.
2.
SA1'oIE-LnUTATION OF CI,AIM.
The Tirrell patent, No. 232,6G1, for an electric gaslighting apparatus, is restricted, in its first claim, to mere mechanical details. 55 Fed. 64, affirmed. Gordon v. Warder, 14 Sup. at. 32, 150 U. S. 47, and Knapp v. Morss, 14 Sup. Ct. 81, 150 U. S. 221, applied.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. In Equity. Bill by the Electric Gaslighting Company and Abraham L. Bogart against Charles E. Fuller and others, copartners as Fuller, Holtzer & Co., for infringement of certain patents for electric gaslighting apparatus. Bill dismissed. 55 Fed. 64. Complainants appeal. Affirmed. Edward P. Payson and Edwin H. Brown, for appellants. Frederick P. Fish and William K. Richardson, for appellees. Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit JUDGES, and NELSON, District Judge. PUTNAM, Circuit Judge. The bill covered a patent issued to Abraham L. Bogart, August 8, 1876, No. 180,832; but no issue seems to be taken upon this, and the bill should be dismissed, so far as that patent is concerned. The controversy relates wholly to the first claim of the patent issued to Jacob P. Tirrell, No. 232,661, September 28,1880, on an application filed January 8, 1877. The appellants maintain that, inasmuch as the court below ordered the bill dismissed because of a certain patent of Heyl and Deihl, there is no occasion here to discuss any other defense; but, even if that had been the substance of the decision of that court,
1004,
rEDERAL REPORTER,VO},
59.':
this of· ther appellatlts Is 10 clearly. erroneons that It does not,l'equire ,discUssion. Tirrell: devised something meritorious and' novel, althongh soon superseded, and although it may be 'doubtful whether it contained anything which the law makes patentable. There can be no doubt that the, two principal' things involved: in Tirrell's patent were old in the/iltate'Qf the art at the date of his invention; that is-First, lightinglllUIIlinating gas with an electric spark; and, second, the simultaneous turning out of the gas. William A; Pitt's patent, No. 139,811, issu,ed June 10, 1873, on an application filed February 6, 1873, covered all this. The appellants, in analyzing their patent, claim, so far as this is concerned, only two new elements: First, the two-armed lever attached to the gas cock, which we take to be the bell-crank lever; and., second, the "actuating device," which is whatever interposes between ,the two-armed lever and the hand. Pitt's device stopped with the ordinary gas cock, and did not contain Tirrell's mechanism, by which the movement could be actuated by a chain or guard hanging from a chandelier or other light beyond ordinary reach. be limited Yet, in view of the state of .the art, Tirrell's to details;' and although the device of the respondents below aooompHshes, in part, the same result as Tirrell's did, and this with a "bell-crank lever," yet, comparing mechanical details with mechanical details, the result is different in law, and the methods ,substantially unlike. This view is confirmed by the fact that Tirrell's specifications state that his invention "consists in certain details of construction" thereinafter "more fully set forth and pointed out in the claims." No words appear in theqriginal application of January 1877, but the following, of like effect, did appear there, namely: ' Is ,ignIted by electricity,
re':ltes espeqlally to that class otgasUghts In which the gal! consists " novel construction and arrangement ot the Parts, as, heretna,tter more fully ,set out lUld claimed, by wWch a simpler, c!'ieape,r, and more etrecj:Jve deVice or this' character Is produced than 18 now in ordinary use."
"My
Such terms as are found in the latter part of this expression relate, ordinarily, to meredetitiled construction. The sentence quoted from the patent itself: came in under the following circumstances: claim August 7, 1880, he was notified by the patent office that, upon amending the statement of his invention to harmonize with the claim as then presented, the application a4t!on, but that, as it then stood, it, 'Was Tirrell, amended by striking out, and Ulserting phraseQlogy On thewhp1e,: under circumstances u,nder which this amend· ' m,ent 8,s,it by the,state of the art ,ail , shown by both Pitt's patell,tand thato-f Heyl and DeihJ, the following expressions iqK1lapp y. Morss, 150' U. 8;221,14 Sup. Ct. 81, and also in Gordon v.,Warder, 150 U. S. 14,!:3ij.p. Ct. 32, have very appro· In Knapp v. i the court said, pages 228 priate and 229, 159p;. and page &4
RIGGIN V. BROWN.
1005
"If, however, the patent could be sustained at all, It would have to be restricted and confined to the specific combination described in the second olaim, as indicated by the letters of reference in the drawings, and each element specifically pointed out is an essential part thereof; '" · · for, if not so restricted by the letters of reference, the effect would be to make the claim coextensive with what was rejected in the patent oflke. If any nUdity could be conceded to the patent, the limitation and restriction which would have to be placed upon it by the action of the patent offlce, and, in view of the prior art, would narrow the claim, or cOllfine it. to the specific structure therein described; and, as thus narrowed, there could be no infringement on the part of appellants if a single element of the patentee's combination is left out of the appellants' device."
In Gordon v. Warder, the court said: "We do not regard the patent of Watson. Renwick, and Watson, dated May 13, 1851, as an anticipation of Gordon, although the specification in that case did a parag'raph stating that it might be advantageous, in some cases, to make the binder adjustable in respect to the cutting- apparatus. No means were there provided, or method pointed out, whereby such a desirable result could be obtained. Nor do we find, in the other patents put in evidence by the defendants, any su(jh anticipation of the (iordou claim. as above defined, as to invalidate the grant made to Gordon on 1Il11y 12. 18GS. though such a state or condition of the art was brought about by these earlier patents as to require us to restrict the scope of the Gordon patent closely to the devices and methods claimed by him."
Looking at Tirrell's improvement in issue here from this point of view, it consists of mechanical details, accomplishing a useful result, but of a low order; and the mechl1nical details of respondents' devices are different, in the sense of the patent law, and accomplish a result also in a large part different, and cannot be held to infringe. Decree of circuit court affirmed.
RIGGIN v. BROWN et al, (District Ccurt. D. Maryland. February 16, 1894.)
1
STATES AND STATE OFFICERS-BOARD OF PUBI,lC WORKS-OYSTER NAVYNEGLIGENCE OF
t.
Code Md. art. 72, regulating the oyster fishery in the waters of the state. charges the board of public works with the duty of keeping In repair tlH' vessels of the state fishery force; and Act Md. 1886, c. 296, provides for the appointment of commanders for such vessels by the board. These commanders are required by law to take an oath, find give bond to the state. Held, that such a commander is himself a public otlicer, and hence the members of the board are not personally liable for injuries resulting from his negligence to a wor}{man repairing such vessel, especially where there is nothing to show that the commander is incompetent.
SAME-LIABILITY AS OWNERS,
The board of public works, in keeping such vessels in repair, act purely as public officers, and do not come within any rule by which charterers or others who have obtained the exclusive navigation of a vessel JDay be held liable as owners for injurips resulting from the negligence of its officers or crew.
In Admiralty. Libel to recover for injuries by William H. Rig;, gin against Frank Brown, Marion De K. Smith, and Spencer C. Jones. Code Md. art. 72, regulating the oyster fishery in the waters of the state, provides for the maintenance by the board of public