Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/137/395/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:47:14+00:00

Document:
Letters patent No. 25,662, granted to Edwin May, October 4, 1859, for an "improvement in the construction of prisons," are invalid.
the jailer and the prisoners at every stage of opening and shutting a door. The mechanism of the patent, except the grating, was old.
As to claim 1, the angle door being old, its combination with a lock or bolt was not new or patentable.
As to claims 3 and 4, the mechanical devices were old, and operated in the same way either with or without the grating.
Introducing the grating did not make a patentable combination, but only an aggregation.
At law for the infringement of letters patent. Verdict for plaintiff and judgment on the verdict. Defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion.
or hood over door C; F, the cells; G, the small door of the safe or box, J; H, the crank which operates the drum, p; I, bolt or lock to the angle door, D; a, a bar connected with the bolts, S, which are operated by the levers, b, for the purpose of fastening the cell doors, j; c, fulcrum of the lever, b; d, levers for operating the sliding doors, l; e, wire rope or endless chain which operates the levers, d; f, hinge joints to levers, d; g, support of pulleys for chain or wire rope; h, pulleys over which the chain or wire rope, e, operates; i, the grated partition; j, cell doors; k, slide or groove for doors, l, to work in; m, rollers for sliding doors, l; n, guard or slide for levers, d; o, staple to padlock levers, b; q, pawl or catch to hold the drum, p, in place; r, rollers for bar, d, to work over."
"The nature and extent of the improvement will be more readily understood by reference to the object sought, which is avoiding the necessity of actual contact with the prisoners while the keeper has perfect knowledge and control of them, and preventing their escape by knocking down the keeper, which has often occurred where the common arrangement of prisons has been used. It is peculiarly adapted to county prisons, and that portion of state prisons appropriated to solitary confinement."
to his cell, and to close the door after him. By operating the lever, b, the bars, a, are drawn, while the bolts, S, being drawn over the doors, secure the same. He then passes in, and locks the doors, j, whereby an iron grating is always kept between the keeper and the prisoners."
"What I claim and desire to secure by letters patent is:"
"First. The angle door, D, in combination with the safe lock or bolt, I, when constructed and operated substantially as set forth."
"Second. The safe, J, containing the drum, p, and bolt, I, and being held by the outer door, C, when constructed and operated substantially as and for the purposes set forth."
"Third. The endless chain or rope, e, in combination with the levers, d, when constructed and operated substantially as and for the purposes set forth."
"Fourth. The combination and arrangement of the levers, b, bar, a, and bolts or lugs, S, when operated from without the grating, i, substantially as and for the purposes set forth."
jury, who found that during the extended term of the patent, the defendant had infringed claims 1, 3, and 4, and they a warded to the plaintiff $1,774.68 damages. 27 F. 691. The defendant moved for a new trial on various grounds, including one that the court erred in not instructing the jury to render a verdict for the defendant and another that the court erred in ruling that the plaintiff was the owner of the cause of action. This motion was denied, and the defendant then moved for an arrest of judgment on the grounds (1) that the patent was void on its face because none of the claims were for a patentable invention or combination, and that no one of the several combinations claimed in it as the patentee's inventions was a new or patentable invention, and (2) that the plaintiff was not the lawful owner of the cause of action sued upon. This motion was overruled, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $1,774.68, and costs. To review that judgment, the defendant has brought a writ of error.
At the trial when the patent was offered in evidence, it was objected to by the defendant on the ground that, on the face of the specification and claims, it was invalid. This objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The same objection was made to the certificate of extension, and overruled, and the defendant excepted. The proceedings for the appointment of the executor, and of the administrator de bonis non, and for the sale of the patent, the conveyance to the plaintiff, and the order of the court confirming the sale and conveyance, were then put in evidence under the objection and exception of the defendant that they did not vest in the plaintiff any title to the cause of action sued on.
"I live at Grand Rapids, Michigan; am a partner in a foundry there. I have had experience in mechanics and patents; have photographed models; have been consulted about the patentability of mechanical devices; have been an expert witness in patent causes; have done patent soliciting; am acquainted with the May patent in suit; know its specifications and claims, and am acquainted with its practical operation and effect. "
"In my opinion, the model representing the defendant's jail contains the mechanical equivalents of the devices described in the specification, and claimed particularly in the first, third, and fourth claims of the patent in question. The results produced by the combinations claimed in the patent are produced by substantially the same means."
combination applied to this purpose that is new and patentable."
The plaintiff then gave evidence to show that the patented contrivance was useful and economical, and for much of the time since it was patented had been in use in sundry jails and prisons in this country. It was further proved that the defendant had used in its jail, ever since 1869, the outside angle door, the contrivance for locking and unlocking the corridor doors, and the contrivance for locking and unlocking the cell doors which were exhibited by the model of its jail, which had been put in evidence. Other evidence was given on the part of the plaintiff, but none to contradict what had been testified to by the witness Moulton, and at the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved that a verdict be directed for it on the grounds, among others, that the patent was void for lack of novelty and that the combinations described in it were not operative combinations, and were old and well known devices applied to similar uses. This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
Thereupon the defendant proved that at the Wisconsin State Prison at Waupun, the Chemung County Jail at Elmira, New York and elsewhere there had been in common and public use, well known to many persons for many years before 1859, a device consisting of a lever, a bar and lugs or bolts attached, operated substantially as described in said patent, to lock or unlock the cell doors, but without any intervening wall, corridor grating, or other protection to the jailer against attack; that such device, except for the absence of a corridor wall or grating, was substantially identical with, and a mechanical equivalent of, the device described in said patent, and claimed in the fourth claim thereof and that it was used and operated in the same way to lock or unlock the cell doors after they had been closed.
each of the claims 1, 3, and 4 was void; that claim 1 did not claim a new device, nor was the combination claimed therein an operative combination, but was a mere aggregation; that claim 3 did not describe a new device, and that it was a question for the jury whether there was an invention, or exercise of the inventive faculty, in the construction of the devices described in the patent. Each of these instructions was refused, and the defendant excepted to each refusal. The case was submitted to the jury under instructions from the court, the defendant excepting thereto because the court did not submit it to the jury to say whether the elements specified in each of the several combinations in claims 1, 3, and 4 appeared together in a practical combination, or whether it was a mere aggregation.
next step is to open the safe or box, J, from the space between the outer door and the angle door, and by the crank, H, operate the drum, p, which carries the wire rope or endless chain, e, which, by pulleys, levers, and hinges, opens or shuts the corridor or partition doors, l. Those doors being closed while the jailer is still outside of the angle door, he can then open the angle door, and go into the inner hall. The mechanism thus explained is the foundation of claims 2 and 3. (3) Then the jailer, having between him and the prisoners the grated partition, i, with the doors in it closed, can direct each prisoner to retire to his cell, and to close the cell door after him. The jailer then, by operating the lever, b, can draw the bars, a, and carry the bolts or lugs, S, over the cell doors, and thus secure them. He can then advance into the corridor, and further secure the cell doors by ordinary locks on them. This mechanism is the foundation of claim 4.
The novel idea set forth in the patent is to interpose a grating between the jailer and the prisoners at every stage of opening or shutting a door. Previously, there had been between the jailer and the prisoners no intervening wall, corridor grating, or other protection against attack, but, with that exception, the prior device used in the Wisconsin State Prison and the Chemung County Jail was substantially identical with, and a mechanical equivalent of, the device claimed in claim 4 of the patent, and operated in the same way to fasten and unfasten the cell doors.
operation and effect of the rock-shaft and handle or lever that moved it, and the bolts that it moved, in connection with the corridor doors thereby locked and unlocked, were precisely the same with or without a wall or grating interposed between the handle or lever and the door locked; that the operation and effect of the arrangement of the lever, b, bar, a, and bolts or lugs, S, as described in the patent, were precisely the same, whether the lever was operated through a wall or grating or not; that mechanically the effect was precisely the same with or without the grating, so far as fastening and unfastening the doors was concerned; that the only difference was in the effect of the grating to protect the jailer and guard against escapes; that every separate element of the combination of claim 4 was old, the levers, the bars, the bolts or lugs, and the grating; that levers had been used long before the patent to move a long bar, and thereby move bolts, lugs, or the like at a distance, and so had similar devices passing through a wall to open and close window shutters, and the like, but that the particular combination adapted to interpose protection between the person operating the device and persons on the other side of the wall or grating was new; that the grating had nothing to do directly with locking or unlocking the doors, but afforded protection to the operator while so doing; that all the elements of claim 3 of the patent were old, and that it was only the particular combination applied to the purpose indicated that was new.
As the angle door was an old contrivance, it is manifest that the combination of it with the safe lock or bolt, I, claimed in claim 1, was not new or patentable. As the witness Moulton says, locks and bolts upon doors are old, and to put a lock or bolt upon an angle door would not be invention. Nor is the combination of an angle door with a lock of any kind a patentable invention, even though the particular lock had not before been put upon an angle door. Moreover, the combination claimed in claim 1 is one of the angle door with the particular lock or bolt, I, that is, such lock or bolt as an integral part of the safe or box, J, with its drum, p, and connections, in which view the apparatus in the defendant's jail does not infringe claim 1.
As to the patentability of claims 3 and 4, the feature which it is alleged makes both of them patentable is the interposition of a barrier between the jailer and the prisoners. In claim 3, the sliding doors are opened and closed, while the angle door is still locked. In claim 4, the cell doors are fastened by means of the bolts or lugs, S, during the time the grated doors in the corridor are securely closed. In view of the evidence, it is clear that the devices covered by claims 3 and 4, as mechanical devices, existed before, having the same mechanical elements, and the same mechanical operation and effect. The whole combination was the same, so far as it was a mechanical or patentable combination -- namely a lever, a bar passing through an interposed barrier, a lever, or its mechanical equivalent at the other end, and something to be moved by the motion thus transmitted through the barrier. The patentee merely used the same devices which had before been used by other persons, between one side of an interposed barrier and the other, with the same mechanical effect. His motive was, and his use of the device was, to protect the jailer, by a sufficient barrier, from being injured by the prisoners; but neither the motive nor the strength of the barrier can enter as an element into the question. The case is one merely of a double use. The mechanism was old in its use to move a door or a gate at a distance, and the mechanical operation of the device was the same, whether the mechanism passed through a solid iron barrier, or a grated iron barrier, or a barrier of another material, or through no barrier at all. Mr. Moulton testifies that the mechanical effect is precisely the same with or without the grating so far as fastening and unfastening the doors is concerned, the only difference being in the effect of the grating to protect the jailer and guard against escapes. Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. 453; The Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wall. 181, 90 U. S. 232; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37; Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187; Vinton v. Hamilton, 104 U. S. 485, 104 U. S. 491; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 104 U. S. 754; Hall v. Macneale, 107 U. S. 90; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U. S. 1; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Crosstown Railroad, 114 U. S. 149; Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co., 132 U. S. 84; Watson v. Cincinnati &c.
Railway Co., 132 U. S. 161; Hill v. Wooster, 132 U. S. 693; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349; St. Germain v. Brunswick, 135 U. S. 227.
As the mechanical operation and effect of the patented devices are the same whether there be a grating or other barrier or not, there is no patentable combination between the devices and the grating. The grating performs no mechanical function, and has no mechanical effect. The case is one of mere aggregation. Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 104 U. S. 318; Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 117; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Crosstown Railroad Co., 114 U. S. 149; Hendy v. Miners' Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370; Aron v. Manhattan Railway Co., 132 U. S. 84.
"any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
plates. Another was for arranging iron plate cells in jails. This Court held that an improvement in the construction of a jail did not come under the denomination of a machine, or a manufacture, or a composition of matter, and that it was doubtful whether it could be classed as an art. But however this may be, the grating in the present case, cannot be considered as a part of a patentable mechanical combination. Brown v. Davis, 116 U. S. 237, 116 U. S. 249, and cases there cited; Forncrook v. Root, 127 U. S. 176, 127 U. S. 181.

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