Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-11-09

FOR the slsstll COMPANY
he Hosds That s-ismbs rst<ss Dses
Nos Cover Al she roinss ~
Mechanism In cAspss swa~p>r<

Tue fiumn fAtcAt ~ TIE man 4t&ftute ~
the Goshsn swsepsf. The judges deeis.
ion IL ss follows;
IL rnH CfncuIT CorRf Of the United
States for the Sixth Circuit and
Western Distract q Michigan.
Southern Division.
BIssKL CskrKg SwEFfFR CoArkrr
Va GossEs CAgrET SwEErER ConPANs.
Decision Of JuDsx SEykREEs In the
above entitled ease.
In the case of the Bissell Carpet
Sweeper Company against the Goshen
Carpet Sweeper Company of Grand
Rspids. on motion for an injunction.
This motion was argued before the sew.
eral weeks ago. aud have held IL under
advisement for a somewhat unusual
length Of time on account Of some pccn-
liar features 81 the case. which viii
presently be adyerted 10 For the pur.
poses of this motion | bold that the
Plumb patent No 23s3si. which con-
stitutes the foundation Of the complain
ants case. IL valid. l do not find that
any OF tho previous patents relied upon
by the defendant anticipated H. or that
there Was any prior public use which
was fatal 10 iis validity. The provision
Of means for constantly effective friction
OF the wheels against the brush roller In
Plumb's invention. was new. more com
plete and useful than anything which
had preceded il. Indeed, the device
seemed admirably adapted for main
tanning the necessary friction. whether
the force applied through the handle u
the sweeper.case be vertical or lateral,
or IN d combination OF the two. This 10
accomplished by peculiar combination
Of the spring aud axle In one member in
such way ss 10 permit the partially
free movement Of the axle. aud. by con-
sequence, OF the wheel in the desired
way. The more troublesome question
with me has been 20 determine what
were the scope aud limits Of the Plumb
patent.
Limits of the Plumb Patent.
This patent was before the then Judge
Brown Ia the eastern district ia the suit
brought there by the present complain.
ant against Wetherbee 4 Co. and in
the opinion rendered by him 10 that
case the learned Judge expressed him
self in this wise. the essence Of this pat
ent Is described in his specifications. as
follows: The fastening of a spring to
the case of a sweeper IN one place only
allows the free motion Of the wheel and
the center III the brush roller being
above the center OF the driving wheels.
enables the operator 20 increase the
friction between the wheels and the
brush roller 10y merely pressing down on
the sweeper; the idea being. generally.
10 make the carpet sweeper 10 CORES
pond az nearly az possible TO broom
moved 10y hand, 80 that the pressure OF
the brush upon the carpet may he in
creased or diminished at pleasure. and
II does not remain uniform as In an
ordinary carpet sweeper Now. with
great Difference 10 that very able judge,
and with more than q willingness TO con-
cur in the ruling In that case. il is i'm
possible for me 10 find In the specifica-
lions and claims Of the Plumb patent,
any foundation for imputing 10 the in
scntor the general idea which seems 10
have been credited 10 him In the fore
going extract.
Peculiar Specifications
There appears to mo TO be not only a
deduction 10 be drawn from the absence
the expression OF such an idea. but |
there are also some peculiafities 10 the |
specifications which negative the infer
mind OF the inventor; thus. the specifi. |
cations contemplated the application ~ 1
the friction az ono end only OF the 4
sweeper Now. perfect friction nj one 1
end was sufficient for the purpose Ut 4
giving constant and reliable motion 10 1
the brush roller. whereas 10 II had been
the purpose 10 cover the peculist feature 1
OF what is now termed "Droom action"
which is equivalent 10 the general idea
above mentioned. IL must have instantly 4
occurred 10 the inventor that the Jour
nailed springs should be attached 10
both ends OF the sweeper instead Of the
wholly inadequate and bung.ing method
having regard 10 that idea which the
lnvcntor adopted IL may be. and
think u. true that sxcepe constructed
on the Plumb patent would have. 10
some extent. the possibility Of such &C
ton. but only Ia quite limited extent.
and In n very imperfect way; for whale
i would be operative for that purpose az
the end Ia which the springs are. IL
would ba wholly inopcrailye at the
,ther. Ii - inconceivshls that the 10
ventor. having the subject before him.
should have LETT the specifications and
claims IN such shape. u he had intended
he useful result now claimed.
Piumb's True I.vensson
The invention claimed By f'lassb vas
'ne TOR the occurring Il oonstanf friction
1pou and consequent motion ~ the 1
brush roller. and not Tor the securing %
! varying pressure of the brush roller
apon the carpet Nov IL turns out that
), az extensios ~ Plumbs device aud
attaching the springs 1t both cutia ~
he sweeper. this pesolsag feature -
broom actor" v pfoibcrd The object
nd result Fought 10 he attained - IN
sAe ntiai part q the statement # the N
ention required ID the statute 10 fe
declared ~ tho iDtsntsr. The elements
4 rs Invention are 10 b. construed eifh
sfsfeuce g. this The result must lie
isefal. apd he must show boW his u.
entlon IN Practice produces u The
onstfuciion Which give 20 the Plumb
aierf 10 az & arrears "a me. The uimosf
bat can be claimed Tor il. snn a must
= thus limited IL order % mske u sus.
ainstle. he uEe Il q spring r. bod
he axle ard wheel 10 sach relation q
be hrueh ruaisf as - rrodafe more or
- effective friciion 9as nrf rec. sud
be rsfiief b@eea pkieot 81 February
a ISIS esoS,is the plgmk insenfioa
zee Close quafters Bot il gss REV as
bass faid. o. ceashins the springs and
b asis - Ssh wsy ~ - rreious he
- siisf eTassiicn o. lbe PIunk psieot
- tafrtneersena
I ara 80 satishe.i that sry q th< a.
'ndants Essthinet laffsnFe thst pafnat
sss.fft,sst - I tkteA - n.ssst A. snI "a