The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-03-23


! have, however, booked at the evidence upon this
point and satisfied that il establishes prior
ity OF the Hill invention, and the pre-exist,n nee OF
his machine.
The question. then, H., does Norcross use the
plaintiffs combination? lie has rotary cutter
similar 10 the PLAINTIFF. bed plate which prevents
the board being drawn towards the axis vi the cut
ter, and part which he calls the rect which press
ca the board down upon the bed. In the PLAINTIFF
machine the pressure roller has two functions
lst. Preventing the board being drawn up by
the cutter.
~. Pressing the board down upon the bed.
And the plaintiffs contend that in the defend
ants machine, what is called the rest performs
OF these functions and the bed the other and that
thus both being performed by these two elements
although differently distributed, tits the plaintiffs
combination. But in the Hi! machine there is
pressure roller and bed piece, which not only
perform these two Office, but by the same disibu
ton, in the dcfcndans; that ID the bed prevents
the board being drawn toward the axis of the cut
ter, and the roller presses the board down to the
bed. IT. then, the plnintiif5 patent covers every
machine in which these offices performed by
! these two elements. in connection with the rotary
cutter, il would cover the Hill IN cbins. This
| constr uction, therefore, cannot be admitted.
The PLAINTIFF witnesses, when asked 10 what
part of the defendants machine they find the
PLAINTIFF pressure roller, are divided In opinion
some OF them say that it ID the bed. because that
prevents the board from being drawn into the aka
OF the cutter, considering that function as the char
acterisc of the PLAINTIFF roller. Others find il in
what is called the rest, because that presses the
board down upon the bed. But in the Hill machine
the roller performed the same Office Of pressing the
board down, and the bed the same office of pre-
venting it being drawn toward the axis If either
of these sets Of witnesses be correct, the Hill
chine contained the plaintiff. pressure roller, and
as it had also bed piece and rotary cutter, it
wodld follow that it had the plaintiffs combna-
| ton Such construction, therefore, cannot be
maintained. The truth p that, after the Hill ma
chine, 1t was only left to Woodworth to make some
new arrangement Of the three clcments--that IL,
some new mode Of combination. Woodworth's in
| vcniion may be regarded as an improvement upon
Hills. II Norcross this improvement, then he
infringes, whatever he may add to il, or with
whatever new invention he connects it, 1.-The does
not use this improvement he does not infringe.
| although he may by other means work out the
| same ultimate result.
What, then, is the improvement which Wood.
worth made on the Hill machinei He took the
tating cylinder. which was in fixed position be
low the bed. and placed it in fixed position above
the bed. This ia the only change in the arrange
ment of the three elements. But it transferred to
the pressure roller function which had before
been performed by the bed. In Hills machine the
pressure roller only kept the board down upon the
bed, the latter keeping it from being drawn into
the axis of the cutter. In Woodworths. the pres
roller performs both these Offices. The effect
of this ID to plano the board the upper side in
stead OF the lower, and the result of that is that
the board comes out of uniform thickness, which
was not accomplished by Hill. In his machine the
rotary cylinder being placed below the bed, with
the knife projecting above it, the edge of the knife
was kept at fixed distance above the upper surface
Of the bed and cut from the lower side Ut the toard
through its whole length and breadth, SO much OF
il was equal to that distance. Thus, if the edge
of the knife quarter of an inch above the bed.
and the board be pressed closely to it, it would
take of quarter of inch of the under side of the
board through its whole extent and if it was Of an
| unequal thic kness before, ii would remain Of an
unequal thic kncss. BY placing the cy Under in a
fixed position above. and keeping certain dis
lance between tho edge OF the cutter and the bed.
and all Of the board above that distance being taken
OFT by cutting the upper side. it necessarily
comes out of uniform thckne
Now let us look at the Norcross machine. ii il
has any part which is equivalent to the pressure
roller. itis the rest Let us, then, for the sake Of
clearncss, consider that to be pressure roller.
What, then, has been done by Norcross9 He has
left the arrangement OF the three elements the
same as it was in Hills. The rotary cylinder ia
below the bed, the pressure roller still keeps the board
down upon the bed, and the bed keeps it from being
drawn into the axis Of the cutter His improve
ment is this He has made the cutting cylinder
movable, vertically, which il was not before, and
hays connected it with his rest that is with the pres
sure roller, 30 that when the latter is forced up
wards by the increased thickness Of the boa il
draws the cutter upwards with it, which thereby 10
made TO cut Just IA much more from the under side
OF the board, the roller is pressed up by the in
creased thickness. By this contrvancc the edge
Of the cutter is kept In fixed relation to the
IN other words, the pressure roller, the space
between them being always the same whereas in
: Hps, and also in Woodworth's, the edge Of the
knife had liked rotation to the bed, and the
pressure roller. The defendant. therefore, had
made a new and independent invention, and does
not use the aTrangeme ut or mode OF combination
of the plaintiff.
The defect in the Hill mac hnc was, that it did
not reduce the board 10 u uniform thickness. This
desideratum the plaintiff has attained by an inn
provencnt for which he was clearly entitled TO a
patent. The defendant has accomplished the same
purpose without using the improvement OF the
plaintiff but merely by a new invention OF bis own,
| and therefore docs not infringe.
We may have some reluctance in coming TO this
conclusion from the apprehe sion that Norcross be-
ing acquainted with the Woodwork machine,
may have taken from that the idea OF placing the
knife at fixed distance from the bed or opposite
side Of the board. But the court does not know.
nor does the evidence show, that that idea not
known before Woodworth's invention. He does
not as we have already seen, claim even set i,
forth as new. We cannot assume, therefore, that
| Il was new TO Wood WORTH or that Norcross may
| not have derived il from sources existing before
| Woodworths invention. And even il he did take
II from Woodworth's, that idea, we have already
seen, ia not claimed OF secured by the plaintiffs
| patent.
The language Of the plaintiffs claim when taken
| in conncxion with his specification, 10 clear and
precise. 1t must be presumed that it wns adopted
after full consideration as best adapted IT,
| and secure all that Woodwork invented The ori
ginal patent was granted in 1928. The reissue
was not until lSs5. In tho meantime there had
been litigation, and the nature and extent
III the invention had been carefully and ably in
! vestigated and discussed in trials at law. The
language OF the first patent was found to be mac
| curate and detective, and the reissue was Oh
tanned solely for the purpose of describing and
claiming the real invention with clcarncss and
precision This il accomplished II the Wood
| worth paentees, in lsi5 had had the Hill machine
before them, they could hardly have used language
more precisely adapted to distinguish their
mcnt, that the Office OF their pressure roller to
press the board down-tbey would have described
fiill's roller but by emitting that, and saying that
it is to prevent the board being drawn up, it has
described Woodworth's roller by the only function
which is peculiar to and characterizes ii.
The conclusion 10 which have arrived ON the
question Of infringement preciudes the necessity
of going into the discussion oil the question of PR
GRITTY aud reissue. think it proper to state, how
ever, that in my opinion neither Of thcse grounds
of defence is sustained by the evidence, and that
William Woodwork the frat inventor OF a
very important and useful improvement. and the
| reissued patent therefore Is valid. The Grst two
grounds Of defence would not prevent tho grant
ing Of an injunction against the defendants, bot
must be reused on the ground that the dciendant-'
machine does not infringe the Woodwork patent.
Messrs. KELLER, Of New York, Gxoaox L. Gun.
tbs, and WooDBuey, for the plaintiffs; 8. Baar-
i lt... -