Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/198/399.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 01:03:16+00:00

Document:
This action was begun in the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey for the purpose of enjoining the alleged infringement of certain letters pattent of the United States, issued to John W. Sutton, and bearing date of May 22, 1888, number 383,258, for a certain new and useful invention or improvement upon machines for plucking furs. [198 U.S. 399, 400] In the circuit court a decree was rendered granting an injunction ( 120 Fed. 672); upon appeal to the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit this judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss the bill. 59 C. C. A. 357, 123 Fed. 869.
The case was brought here upon writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the circuit court of appeals.
Messrs. Louis C. Raegener and John W. Griggs for petitioners.
Mr. Henry Schreiter for respondents.
The patent in controversy has been frequently sustained in the Federal courts (95 Fed. 474; 108 Fed. 82; 53 C. C. A. 2301, 115 Fed. 498; and 53 C. C. A. 161, 115 Fed. 507), and its validity is not contested here. The question presented to us is one of infringement. The invention which is the subject-matter of the controversy relates to machinery for unhairing pelts, and particularly, and perhaps, exclusively, so far as practical use is concerned, sealskins or 'coney' skins. The latter are skins of French or Belgian rabbits, which, under the name of 'electric' sealskins, have been put upon the market, and have been largely sold and used as substitutes for the genuine sealskin. It is said that only an expert can tell the difference between the finished coney and the genuine sealskin.
'This invention relates to an improved machine for plucking sealskins and other furs, so as to remove the stiff water hair therefrom without injuring the soft hair or wool of the same.
'The machine is more especially designed with a view to overcome some of the defects and insufficiencies of the plucking machines heretofore in use, and produce the plucking of the skins at the lower parts of the neck and shoulders, where the hairs point outwardly and backwardly and are the most difficult to pluck, as they lie down close to the skin when the same is drawn over the stretcher bar.
'My invention is further designed to dispense with a blast fan or other air-forcing devices, and produce the removing of the water hairs entirely by mechanical means, which are operated by power, so that a quick and uniform plucking of the skin takes place.
The invention was illustrated by certain drawings, some of which are here given, which, together with the description, illustrate the operation of the machine, so far as necessary for the purposes of this case.
'A represents the supporting frame of my improved machine for plucking seal and other skins. On the frame A is supported a fixed transverse stretcher bar, B, which is tapered to a narrow edge, over which the skin to be plucked is stretched. The skin is applied by tapes to the rollers B' B' which are intermittently actuated by gear wheels operated by a pawl-and-ratchet-wheel mechanism from the driving shaft S, as customary in plucking machines of this class. By the gear wheels and the pawl-and- ratchet mechanism the skin is fed intermittently for a small portion of its length over the front edge of the stretcher bar, it being unwound from the upper and wound up on the lower feed roller. Below the edge of the stretcher bar is arranged a vertically-reciprocating knife C, which moves in slots or ways of fixed guide plates C', and which is operated by fulcrumed levers C2, the rear ends of which are engaged by cams C3 on a cam shaft, S', that is supported above the driving shaft in suitable bearings of the frame A.
'In front of and at some distance from the stretcher bar B is supported a shaft, D', in bearings of the frame A, said shaft being provided with radial arms d d, to which the rotary knife D is attached, which, in conjunction with the vertically-reciprocating knife C, serves to cut off the water hairs projecting form that part of the skin in front of the edge of the stretcher bar B. To the arms of the rotary knife D, and at some distance back of the latter, is applied a carding brush, D2, which acts on that part of the skin that is fed forward over the edge of the stretcher bar immediately after the hairs of the next preceding section of the skin have been cut off. The shaft D' of the cutting knife D is rotated from the cam shaft S', by means of an intermediate longitudinal shaft, S2, and two sets of miter wheels, D3, D4.
'Immediately above the stretcher bar B is arranged a stationary card, E, which is attached to the ends of the stretcher bar B by means of thumb screws. (Not shown in drawings.) [198 U.S. 399, 404] The points of the teeth of the card E are close to but do not touch the surface of the skin, so that the hair and fur are both straightened as the skin is fed forward. The teeth of the card E hold down the fine fur, but permit the stiff hairs to stand up between the teeth, owing to the slow forward movement of the skin, which gives the hairs sufficient time to adjust themselves.
'Below the stretcher bar B is arranged a rotary separating brush, F, which is supported in oscillating arms F', that are guided by pins f, in arc-shape slots f' of fixed guide plates f2, as shown clearly in Figs. 1, 2, and 3, the oscillating arms F' being pivoted to horizontally- reciprocating connecting rods F2, which are provided with yokes f3, having anti-friction rollers at their rear ends, and acted upon by cams F3 on the cam shaft S', the cams being so shaped and timed that the forward and upward motion of the brush F takes place at the proper time.
'The brush F receives rotary motion from two belts, f4, which pass over pulleys f5 on the shaft S' and the brush shaft, and which are kept taut by weighted idlers f6, as shown clearly in Fig. 1.
The operation of the machine is thus described.
The great merit of this invention is said to consist in the use of the brush, applied by means of the mechanism shown, so as to brush down the fur, and permit the long hairs, which should be removed, and which rise at the edge of the stretcher bar, when the pelt is drawn over it, to be acted upon by the knives when the fur is brushed away, so as not to be injured.
Furthermore, it appears that while the Cimiottis acquired an exclusive license under the Sutton patent in 1888, the same was not put into commercial use until the introduction of coney skins as a substitute for sealskins, about the year 1890. During this time the Cimiottis were unhairing a large number of skins, and preferred to continue to use the air-blast machine of their own invention while paying tribute to Sutton. It was the introduction of the coney industry, in 1890, that gave stimulus to the use of such mechanisms as those used by the Cimiottis and the respondent in this case. We think it fair [198 U.S. 399, 409] to say that this record discloses an invention of merit, entitled to some range of equivalents in determining the question of infringement, but it is not one of those broad, initiative inventions where original thought has been embodied in a practical mechanism, which the courts have been ever zealous to protect, and to which a wide range of equivalents has been accorded.
Due weight is given to the Sutton patent when it is given credit for dispensing with the plate which Covert had in addition to the brush, and which he supposed would carry down the fur away from the cutting mechanism, but which Sutton has accomplished in giving, in a measure, at least, this added function to the brush of not only parting the fur, but carrying it down and away in preparation for the clipping by the knives. Any one who accomplishes the same purpose by substantially the same mechanism, using the elements claimed in Sutton's patent, may be held to be an infringer.
Sutton has taken the step which marks the difference between a successfully operating machine and one which stops short of that point, and that advance entitles him to the protection of a patent.
The elements of this claim are five in number: 1, a fixed stretcher bar; 2, means for intermittently feeding the skin over the same; 3, a stationary card above the stretcher bar; 4, a rotary separating brush below the same; 5, mechanism whereby the rotary brush is moved upward and forward into a position in front of the stretcher bar, 'substantially as set forth.' [198 U.S. 399, 410] In making his claim the inventor is at liberty to choose his own form of expression, and while the courts may construe the same in view of the specifications and the state of the art, they may not add to or detract from the claim. And it is equally true that, as the inventor is required to enumerate the elements of his claim, no one is an infringer of a combination claim unless he uses all the elements thereof. Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 U.S. 593 -597, 29 L. ed. 723, 724, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Sutler v. Robinson, 119 U.S. 530 -541, 30 L. ed. 492-495, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419 -425, 35 L. ed. 800-802, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 76; Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U.S. 47 , 39 L. ed. 64, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Black Diamond Coal Min. Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co. 156 U.S. 611 -617, 39 L. ed. 553-555, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; Walker, Patents, 349. This principle is particularly important when we come to consider the 'stationary card above the stretcher bar,'-an element of the eighth claim.
The anticipating mechanism set up in this case is the so-called English Lake patent of October, 1881. This patent has been the subject of much adverse comment in the cases involving a consideration of it. And it appears to have lapsed for nonpayment of taxes in June, 1885, and not to have been a successful machine. It may be the fact that the patent is not distinctly worded, and that the drawing and specifications are somewhat confused. It does appear, however, without contradiction in the record, that the machine now used by the respondents was made in a large measure from the drawings of the Lake patent. Mischke, one of the respondents, was put upon the stand by the petitioners, and testified that he made the changes in a short time from the Lake patent, which resulted in the alleged infringing machine. The Lake patent showed two brushes, whereas the respondents' machine has dispensed with one and changed the position of the other. He also admits to have changed the position of the cam and shortened the crank arm as shown in the Lake machine. It seems to be the position of the petitioners' expert that Mischke made the changes in the Lake patent necessary to convert it into an operative machine by adopting the controlling features of the Sutton patent. But whatever are the defects of the [198 U.S. 399, 411] Lake patent, the question here is, Does the machine of the respondents infringe the eighth claim of the Sutton patent? One of the respondents' machines is in evidence, and we have carefully examined it. Its general outline may be seen in the annexed copy of the photograph in evidence: ( see opposite page.) [198 U.S. 399, 412] The operation of the alleged infringing machine is such that when the power is applied for moving the stretcher bar, it is carried forward to the revolving brush, and after the brush has separated the fur from the hair, carried upwardly, to be acted upon by the cutting knives. The reciprocating motion of the stretcher bar from the brush to the knives is produced by the action of the crank (operating with the cam) on the main shaft, as shown in the photograph. At the same time the mechanism for feeding the machine is in operation, actuated by the same application of power. This mechanism (shown in the photograph at the side of the respondents' machine) consists of the pawl (attached to the main frame) and the ratchet wheel (attached to the moving frame), turning when the pawl engages therein, and acting with the worm gearing shown, to turn the roll which is part of the feeding mechanism. The operation is such that when the stretcher bar is carried from the knives to the brush in the return motion, the action of the pawl upon the ratchet wheel, with the worm gearing, causes the roll to turn and the pelt to be carried forward, the extent of the feed being regulated by the adjustment of the pawl. By this means the necessity of an independently acting mechanism for the feeding apparatus is avoided and the operation simplified.
And see Kokomo Fence Co. v. Kitselman, 189 U.S. 8 , 47 L. ed. 689, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 521, in which case it was held that where the patent does not embody a primary invention, but only an improvement on the prior art, and the defendant's machines can be differentiated, the charge of infringement is not sustained.
In the case under consideration the respondents have dispensed with the fixed stretcher bar and have adopted a movable one, operated by an entirely different mechanism, capable of accomplishing a much larger amount of work within a given time. In the circuit court of appeals it was said to result in a double working capacity and product. It does not seem to us to be a mere transposition or substitution of parts; in the Sutton patent, the stretcher bar being stationary, there are several mechanisms used for operating the movable brushes and the clipping knives; a different mechanism is used for operating the different parts which are to be brought to the fixed stretcher bar in carrying out the operation intended. In the respondents' machine the same application of power moves the stretcher bar and, by the co-operation of the feeding ap- [198 U.S. 399, 415] paratus as above outlined feeds the machine by bringing the pelt forward, at the same time actuating the knives, in practically one operation. This seems to us to be a distinct mechanical departure, as well as an advance upon the Sutton machine, when considered in view of the results accomplished.
While it is said that the card does not touch the surface of the skin so that the hair and fur are both straightened as the skin is fed forward, it is true that the teeth of the card in some measure hold down the fine fur, and it is insisted that the mechanical equivalent of this card is found in respondents' [198 U.S. 399, 416] machine in the compression bar, which also acts to hold down the fur before it is carried to the separating brush. But this bar has no carding feature to it, and cannot be made to perform the functions of a card; it has no separate teeth, and is not a card or the mechanical equivalent of one shown and described and made a part of the eighth claim.
We think the Circuit Court of Appeals was right in the conclusion that the mechanism of the respondents was so materially different from the Sutton patent as to avoid the infringement alleged; and that an essential element of the eighth claim of the Sutton patent was not used by the respondents.

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