Source: https://openjurist.org/21/f1d/321
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:31:39+00:00

Document:
. "A milk can, a, is closed at the top by a hollow float, and has at the upper end afthe side a transparent pane of glass, through which the formation of the cream and its depth can readily be ascertained. The milk-can, lifter be.ing filled with milk, is placed in a water-jacket, i, surrounded on its sides and bottom with a hollow closed. receptacle, l, into which steam and cold water are alternately introduced; toe stealll, at the side of the receptacle, by a pipe leading from an ordinary heater, m, so·as to raise the temperature of the milk to about 130 deg. Fahrenheit, at which temperature cream is most rapidly separated; and the cold water at the bottom of the receptacle, by the force of gravity, through a delivery pipe from an ordinary water-cooler,p, so as to cool the milk gradually from below, prevent downward currents in the milk, and thus form cream more quickly and in greater proportion than in ordinary open cans. Within the can is a tube, d, to about two-thirds of the height of the can, and the lower end of which projects through the side of the can llear the bottom, and is there provided with a suitable stopcock. Closely fitted into the upper end of this tube is another tube, f, open at both ends, which can be adjusted up and down, so as to draw off the cream at the level of its junction with the milk, and which has attached to its upper end a graduated scale, g, and an indicator, h, opposite the glass pane, so as to show the depth of the cream, and how much is drawn off."
"(1) The herein described apparatus for obtaining cream from milk, consisting of the milk-can, a, the water-jacket, i, the closed receptacle, l, the heater, m, and the cooler, p, as set forth. "(2) The herein delicribed milk-can, a, for raising cream, in combination with the telescopic tubes, d,f, the graduated scale, g, and the indicator, h, as and for the purpose set forth. "
-p) A milk vessel, having an adjustable faucet that can be set to automatICally discharge any predetermined quantity ot milk, to leave in the vessel a certain quantity of cream, and provided with a glass pane to ascertain the degree or place of adjustment of the faucet."
"The claim at issue between the parties to this controversy reads as follows: 'A can for milk and cream separation, having an adjustable automatic discharge faucet, and a transparent pane by which the place [or degree] of faucet adjustment may be determined.' Priority of invention is the only question to be determined. While it is true that the devices of the respective parties are different, in principle t.hey are the same, and both are within the terms of the issue. The evidence shows that Shaw completed a model of his inveIrtion in March, 1876. Whether the date written upon the model is the correct one or not, is immaterial in this case, as it clearly appears that sometime during that month the model was completed. Butler claIms to have conceived his invention in November, 1876. He reduced it to practice in January or February following. I find nothing in the testimony showing an abandonment of invention on the part of Shaw; and as the dates above mentioned show that he was the prior Inventor, I affirm the decision of the board of examiners in chief, awarding him priority of invention."
"Yet the former examiner having held that the old patent of Shaw authorized the making of the third claim, and that said third claim covered the matter of the first daim, and the commissioner having virtually deCided priOrity in favor of Shaw, we will pro forma affirm the action of the exam· iner now in charge, and let the matter go before the commissioner for disen. tanglement and adjudication."
"Intbeir decision in the interference proceeding, the board of examiners in chief made substantially the same suggestion with reference to certain differences existing between Butler and Shaw, which they now make in the eaJ parte proceeding. These dlfferences were recogn;zed by the commissioner, but it was finally held, after careful consideration, that, notwithstanding these the claims of the parties, as therein presented, were Bubstantia!ly identical. ...' he first claim now avpealed is the claim that was involved in the interference referred to, and the third claim is drawn up in the very language of the issue in that case. The questions presented by claims are therefore'res adjndicata, and cll;arly cannot be reopened in an eaJ parte proceeding upon the suggestion of the defeated party. The applicant must therefore be finary rejected, upcn reference to ttlC adjudication in the interference case of Butler v. Shaw."
"The within described method of separating cream from the milk from or upon which it shall have been raised, which consists in first ascertaining, as ' set forth, the quantity or depth of cream raisp,d in the vessel, and then adjusting a dis( halge faucet to the point and withdrawing the milk f, om beneath the cream, leaving such predetermined quantity of cream within the vessel."
No copies of the proceedings in the patent-office upon that application having been submitted to us, we are not informed of the grounds upon which Butler was granted a patent for the method, while he was refusJd a patent for the machine in which the method was embodied. At the argument before this court, the defendant contended that Shaw was rightly awarded priority of invention upon the claim f?tated in the declaration of intederence; that if Shaw was not entitled to that claim, Butler was not; that if Butler was entitled to his first claim, he had mistaken his remedy, by filing a bill in equity in this court to review the decision of the commissioner of paMnts upon the interference, instead of appealing to the supreme court of the District of Columbia from the final rejection of this claim by the acting commissioner; and that he was precluded from now asserting this claim by having taken out the patent of January 31, 1882. The proofs before us clearly show that Bntler was the first inventor of the device described in his first claim fOr drawing off the milk, leaving the cream in the can; that Shaw's invention was limited to the device which he described for drawing off the cream, leaving the milk; that the two inventions differed in mechanical construction and in practical operation; and that neither was broad enough to include both.
by a party against whom an interference has been decided by the commissioner of patents, is a suit within the ordinary jurisdiction· in equity of the courts of the United States; the court itself gives noticeto adverse parties; the statute contains no provision requiring the case to be heard upon the evidence produced before the commissioner, or restricting the effect of the decree; and, as has been held in this and other circuits, the court may receive new evidence, and has the same powers as in other cases in equity. Whipple v. Miner, 15 FED. REP. 117, before LOWELL, J.; Ex parte 3 Ban. & A. 133, before TREAT, J., and Atkinson v. Boardman, before Mr. Justice NELSON, there cited. Doubtless, upon general principles, and in accordance with the rule expreSSly declared in section 4918 in the case of a similar bill between parties interested in interfering patents, the judgment cannot affect the right of any person except the parties to the suit, and those subsequently deriving title under them. The question now before us, however, is not, what effect an adjudication in this case in favor of the complainants may have in future suits, but whether the commissioner erred to their prejudice in his decision upon the interference; . and, for the reasons already stated, that decision was erroneous in awarding priority of invention to Shaw upon the broad claim stated in the declaration of to the detriment of Butler's first claim, on which he was clearly entitled to a patent. . The position of the defendant, that Butler is precluded, by having taken out the patent of January 31, 1882, from now asserting his first claim, cannot be sustained. The application for that patent was filed by Butler after the decision against him upon the interference, and after repeated rejection by the primary examiner of his first and third claims. His object in filing it evidently was to secure so much of his invention as the patent-office was willing to allow to him, without intending to abandon his effort to procure a reversal of its action in other respects. After the filing of his last application, he continued diligently to prosecnte his appeal to the board of examiners and to the commissioner of patents from the rejection of his former application; and the present bill to review the adverse decision of the commissioner upon the interference was filed within a year after that decision was made. Under these circumstances, no intention to abandon the claims asserted in the bill can be inferred from his having meanwhile applied for and taken out the patent of January 31, 1882. Suffolk Co" v. Hayden, 3 Wall. 315; Adams v. Jones, 1 Fisher, Pat. Cas. 527; Graham v. McCormick, 10 Biss. 39; McMillin v. Rees, 5 Ban. & A. 269. The question of the validity of that patent is not presented by this hill. Nor is it necessary, for the decision of this case, to consider the question, strongly contested at the bar, whether Shaw's invention was prior in time to Butler's. Neither of those questions, therefore, is passed upon or concluded by this opinion.
The last clause of section 4915 of the Revised Statutes, requiring the a.pplicant to pay all the expenses of the proceeding whether the final decision is in his favor or not, is, in manifest intention, if not by unavoidable construction, limited to cases in :which there is no opposing party other than the commissioner of patents, and in which, therefore, the costs, if not paid by applicant, would fall upon the commissioner, and upon the government whose officer he is. WhenE)ver there are opposing parties, as in a contested case of interference, the ordinary rule .should be followed, and costs be awarded to the party prevailing. 'rhe result is that while Butler is not entitled to a patent on his third claim, there must be a decree that he is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for the invehtion specified in his first claim, and for costs. Decree for complainants accordingly.
Patent No. 243,674, granted to James Forncrook for an improvement in sectional honey-frames, held void for want of novelty.
Whether such patent is for a honey section containing a combination of ali the elements specified, so that each element has been made material, qUI1Jre; but held, that the patent is not merely for the blank adapted for the construction of the hone)' section by simply bending and uniting the ends, but also embraces the honey-f1'arne, as thns formed and made out of such blank.
Wm. P. Wells, for complainant.
J. A. Osborne, for defendant.
MATTHEWS, Justice. This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged 1881, infringement of letters patent No. 243,674, granted June to the complainant, James Forncrook, of Watertown, Wisconsin, for a new and useful improvement in sectional honey-frames, and for an account, etc. The claim of the patent is as follows: "As a new article of mannfacture, a blank for honey-frames formed of a single piece of wood having transverse angular grooves, c, longitudinal groove, d. and recesses, b, all arranged iII the manner shown and described." As set out in the Bpecifications,"This in vention relates to an improvement in sectional honey-frames, the object being to so construct them that they shall be stIonger and in a more portable form than the frames now used for such purposes; and the iIlven1Rep.orted by J. C. Harper, Esq., ofthe Cincinnati bar.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.