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

| CIRCUIT COURT.
Judge Sp~ague's Opinion, delivrfd Ftbritary "a
| 1852, in favor - Hs Norcross Planning lachine
Brooks et al. VS.. No,crOss Ell ai-lhll in equity by
the assignee Of the Woodwork patent, praying
| for an Injunction
| SPRAGUE, There are three grounds of de-
| - fence set upi
l5t That Wood worth was not the first inventor.
| I'd. That if he wac, the re Issued patent Is not
| for the original invention
81. That the Defendants machine does not in
| fringe the plaintiff 3 patent.
| The last presents the principal difficulty, and
| proceed at once TO its examination
| The solution Of this question depends upon the
construction to BE- given TO the Wordsworth patent.
The counsel for the plaintiffs contend, in the first
place, that the actual invention shows that Wood
worth discovered that by preserving fixed dis
lance between the edge Of the knife and the oppo
site surface Of the board every point while the
board passes through the machine, uniform
thickness Of board will result from the operation
of planning, and that the patent Is for such inven-
| ton discovery.
| In the second place, il is contended that the
| specification contained directions which show the
OF carriage or bed against which the board is to
be pressed "close," and from which the cutters
not to be allowed to lift it, the patentce ia clearly
entitled 10 cover all the effects which follow from
these directions
That is, that the patent is for truth idea,
and covers all mechanism for carrying 1t into
practical effect, or for result, and covers all ma
chincry by which that result is produced.
! The first question is, whether such patent would
be valid! The general rule is that patent must
be not for n principle or result, but fer the me
chanica means by which the principle is carried
into effect or the result attained.
Without, however, undertaking to decide that in
| no case could the dscoverer Of a and import
ant truth secure to himself all the mechanical
means ofcarrying it into effect it is certain that it
| must be a case in which he clearly sets forth and
| clams such new truth to be his discovery and ex
elusive right. Has this been done by the patenec
| in the present case?
In the patent Of 1928 the specification mentions
| the result Of reducing to a uniform thickness but
not the new truth or idea now contende1io for, and
! the claim does not mention either; and il it had it
could not aid the plaintiffs if not found in the
issue, for the inference would be that it was drop
| ped because II had been ascertained to be part
of the original invcntion--thc sole purpose OF the
reissue being to correct the former and more clear
| ly and accurately describe the real invention. The
PLAINTIFF case, therefore, must rest on the re-
Issued patent and in that the claim is in the follow
ing W Wda, o,.;m.a ,.,.; ,,s ;,v.r,;on If
| WIN. Woodwork, deceased, ID the employment OF
rotary planes substantially such herein described
in combination with rollers, any analogous de-
vice to prevent the boards from being drawn up by
the planes when cutting upwards or from the
reduced or plancd 10 the unpaned surface as de-
scribed."
And afterwards:
"Thc effect of the pressure. rollers ~ these op-
erations being such to keep the boards, &c,
steady, and prevent the cutters from drawing the
boards towards the centre Of the cutter wheels,
whilst it is moved through by machinery. In the
planning operation the tendency Of the plane Is to
lift the boards directly up against the rollers but
| in the tonguing and growing the tendency is to
overcome the friction occasioned by the pressure Of
| the rollers.''
Ths language, far from claiming the new
truth or the result now contended for the inven
ton or discovery, does not describe even suggcst
either of them.
But the claim or summing up 10 not TO be taken
alone but in come ion with the specifications and
dr. lpsfr ia IN he atr cd
! together. But We TO look at the other parts
only for the purpose of enabling us correctly to in
terpret the claim.
The specification begins by saying: "Thc fol-
lowing 10 full, clear, and exact description of
the method of planning, tonsuing, and growing
plank or boards invented by William Woodwork,
deceased"
Here the invention is dcnominated a method OF
planning, tonguing, and growing, but not OF re-
ducipg to an uniform thickness.
The specification, then, alter describing the mode
OF preparing the board, prccecds thus: "Whcn the
plank or boards have been thus prepared, ION q
separate machinc,) they may be placed OF
against a suitable carriage, resting frame or
platform, to be acted upon by a rotary cut.
ting or planning and reducing wheel, which wheel
mny be made 10 revove either horizontally or YER
ticalIy, as may be preferred. The carriage which
sustains the plank or board TO be operated upon,
may be moved forward by means Of rack and
pinion, by endcss chain, band, by geared
friction rollers by any of the devices well known
10 machinists for advancing carriage, Inateri-
ais 10 De acted upon In machines Tor various pur
poses. The plank or board lie to be moved on to-
wards the cutting edges Of the cutters, or knives
on the planning cylinder, 40 that its knives or cut
tcrs, as they revolve, may meet and cut the plank
or board, In direction contrary to that in which
it is made to advance. The edges Of the cutters
are in this method prevented from coming first
into contact with its surface, and made TO cut
upwards from the reduced part of the plank 10.
wards said surface, by which means their edges
are protected from injury by gritty matter, and
the board. or plank, Is more evenly and better
plance than when moved in the reverse direction
| There ia afterwards o reference TO, and explana-
| ton of, the drawings, follows: Gin the accom-
panying drawings figure is a perspective repre-
sentation OF the principal operating parts OF the
machine when arranged and combined for PLAN
ing, tonguing and growing; and when 50
ranged as to be capable OF planning two panks at
tho came time the axis OF the planning wheel being
placed vertically"
And again: 1.-THE rollers (, f, f. which stand ver-
| hcal'y, are TO be made 10 press oganst the plank
and keep close to the carriage, and thus prevent
the action OF the cutters from drawing the plank
up from is bed, in cutting from the pianed surface
| upwards; they may be borne against IT by means
Of weights or springs, in n manner well known to
machinists. In n single horizontal machine the
horizontal friction rollers may be geared, and the
pressure rollers pinced sboye them to feed the
board, with or without the carriages, bed plate
being used directly under the planning cylinder"
And afterwards, in describing the process for
tonguing and growing, he says, "as that the
tongue and groove shall be left at the proper dis
lance from the face of the plank, the latter being
sustained against the planning cylinder by means
OF the carriage or bed plate or otherwise, 50 that
it cannot dcviate, but may be reduced TO proper
thickness and correctly tongued and grooyed. ."
"To meet,the different tbicknesscs of the plank
boards, the bcarings OF Che shaft of the cylinder
may be msde movable by screws, or other means,
to adjust II TO the work; the carriage or bed
plate may be mndc, to raise the board or
plank up to the planning cylinder"
These are the parts OF the specification most per-
tncnt to the present inquiry. So far from putting
forth the truth or idea OF keeping the side of the
board furtbest from the plane at all parts ,quds.
| tant from the plane or the ofect-namely, the re-
duction OF the board to uniform thickness as be
ing tho invention or discovery, they neither Of
| them described or mentioned, and if they existed
in the mind OF the inventor they left by him TO
be inferred only from the mechanism which he de-
scribcs In this respect. therefore, the claim can
not be enlarged by reference 10 the specification
and drawings. The patent. therefore, is not for n
truth or result as contended tor, but for some me
| chansm.
l. Another view presented by the plaintiff coun-