Letters patent No. 122,001, granted to the Eagleton
Manufacturing Company, December 19, 1871, for an "improvement in
japanned furniture springs," as the alleged invention of J. J.
Eagleton,
held to be invalid, and the following points
ruled:
1. The patent is for steel furniture springs protected by japan
and tempered by the heat used in baking on the japan.
2. Such springs, so protected and tempered, were known and used
by various persons named in the answer before the date of the
patent.
3. The specification which accompanied the original application
by Eagleton, July 6, 1888, did not set forth the discovery that
moderate heat such as may be applied in japanning will impart
temper to the springs, but set forth merely the protection of the
springs by japan.
4. Not only does the evidence fail to show that Eagleton, who
died in February, 1870, in fact made and used, prior to such other
persons, the invention covered by the patent as issued, but it
shows that he did not, and that probably it never came to his
knowledge while he lived.
5. Japanning, by itself, was not patentable, and Eagleton, in
the specification which he signed and swore to, did not describe
any mode of japanning which would temper or strengthen the steel,
and did not even mention that
Page 111 U. S. 491
the Japan was to be applied with heat, and it now appears that
the temper and strength are produced by the heat altogether, and
not at all by the Japan.
6. The only invention to which the application and oath of
Eagleton were referable was that of merely japanning steel
furniture springs; the authority given to his attorneys was only to
amend that application, and ended at his death; the amendments made
were not mere amplifications of what had been in the application
before; the patent was granted upon them without any new oath by
the administratrix, and this defense is not required, by statute,
to be specifically set forth in the answer, and can be availed of
under the issues raised by the pleadings, as showing that the
plaintiff has no valid patent.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Southern District of New York on letters patent No.
122,001, granted to the plaintiff, the Eagleton Manufacturing
Company, December 19, 1871, for an "improvement in japanned
furniture springs." The patent contains these recitals:
"Whereas J. J. Eagleton, of New York, New York (Sarah N.
Eagleton, administratrix) has presented to the Commissioner of
Patents a petition praying for the grant of letters patent for an
alleged new and useful improvement in japanned furniture springs
(she having assigned her right, title, and interest in said
improvement, as administratrix, to Eagleton Manufacturing Company,
of same place), a description of which invention is contained in
the specification of which a copy is hereto annexed and made a part
hereof, and has complied with the various requirements of law in
such cases made and provided, and whereas, upon due examination
made, the said claimant is adjudged to be justly entitled to a
patent under the law."
The specification of the patent is as follows:
"Be it known, that I, J. Joseph Eagleton, of New York, in the
County of New York and State of New York, have invented a new and
useful improvement in furniture springs, and I do hereby
Page 111 U. S. 492
declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact
description thereof, which will enable others skilled in the art to
make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying
drawing, forming part of this specification, in which the drawing
represents a furniture spring provided, according to my
improvement, with a japan covering. [The helical springs
heretofor"
image:a
"employed for furniture seats, mattresses, etc., have generally
been made of iron wire, brass, or copper, but steel wire, although
a far superior material for such springs, has not been commonly
employed, owing
Page 111 U. S. 493
to the lack of means for protecting such springs from corrosion
and the lack of means for imparting to them the necessary stiffness
or temper. The object of this invention is to produce steel
furniture springs that shall not only be protected from corrosion,
but shall also be suitably tempered and stiffened. The drawing is a
perspective view of one of my improved springs. In carrying out my
invention, I provide a suitable quantity of steel wire of the size
of which the spring is to be made, and this I wind upon blocks in
the usual manner, giving the wound spring the ordinary pressing or
set. I then provide a suitable bath containing the ordinary
preparation of japan varnish, in which I dip or place the springs
so as to cover them with japan. They are then removed and strung on
wires or put on pegs to drain, after which they are placed in a
baking oven of the ordinary kind suitable for the baking of
japanned articles, in which oven the springs are subjected to a
temperature sufficient to bake and harden the japan, after which
the springs are removed from the oven and allowed to cool, when
they are ready for use. The treatment of the springs in this manner
imparts to them two important and valuable qualities: first, the
springs when they come from the oven and are cooled, have firmly
attached to their exterior surface a waterproof covering or coating
which perfectly protects them from corrosion and fits them for
service in all kinds of climates, hot or cold, dry or damp; second,
the springs thus prepared are strengthened or stiffened, the
application of heat to the springs in the oven having the apparent
effect to temper the steel of which they are composed, making the
springs stronger and more elastic. As between a steel spring not
japanned as I have described and a steel spring japanned as
described, both being of the same size and made from the same piece
of wire, the japanned spring will be found to be much stronger than
the spring not japanned. The spring not japanned is therefore not
only lacking in strength, but it is also practically useless for
want of a protecting covering. But the improved article, produced
substantially in the manner I have described, forms a strong and
durable spring, and no article like it has, so far as I am aware,
ever been known or used. While I do not claim, broadly, the making
of furniture springs of steel wire, I wish it to be understood I do
not limit or confine myself to the exact order or method of
operation here described, in producing my improved
Page 111 U. S. 494
springs, as the order or method may be varied without departing
from my invention.]"
There are two claims, namely:
"1. The method, herein described, of strengthening metal
springs. 2. As an improved article of manufacture, a spring made
substantially as herein described."
Eagleton, as inventor, filed in the Patent Office, on the 6th of
July, 1868, a petition for a patent for an "improvement in
furniture springs," accompanied by an affidavit, a specification, a
drawing, and a model and the proper fee, and in the petition
appointed Munn & Co. "to act as his attorneys in presenting the
application, and making all such alterations and amendments as may
be required, and to sign his name to the drawings." The affidavit
that Eagleton verily believed himself to be "the original and first
inventor of the within described improvement in furniture springs"
was sworn to by him June 26, 1868. The specification then filed was
as follows:
"Be it known that I, J. Joseph Eagleton, of New York, in the
County of New York and State of New York, have invented a new and
useful improvement in furniture springs, and I do hereby declare
that the following is a full, clear, and exact description thereof,
which will enable others skilled in the art to make and use the
same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming part
of this specification, in which the drawing represents a furniture
spring provided, according to my improvement, with a japan
covering. [The nature of this invention relates to improvements in
helical furniture springs such as are used for mattresses, sofas,
etc., the object of which is to provide steel springs which will
not be so liable to injury from corrosion as those now in use. It
consists in providing steel springs such as are commonly used with
a japan outer covering. Steel springs, as is well known, possess in
a much higher degree the requisite qualities of strength,
flexibility, and elasticity than iron, copper, or brass, and by
reason of the susceptibility of steel to be tempered and thereby
regulated to any degree of elasticity, it is much more preferable
to use; but owing to its great liability to deterioration
Page 111 U. S. 495
from corrosion, it is but little used for such springs. To
obviate this difficulty, I propose to provide steel springs coated
with japan, which I find to be of great advantage in resisting the
corrosive action of the atmosphere on the steel, and whereby steel
springs are made very much more durable than any other. To some
extent, the same purpose may be accomplished by coating the spring
with tin or zinc or other similar metal which will not suffer by
corrosion, but the process of coating with such metals requires the
use of acids for cleaning and preparing the steel, which, adhering
to the steel and being to some extent enclosed within the said
coating and maintained in contact with the steel, have an injurious
effect thereon. I have therefore found that when the springs are
protected by japanning, they are much more durable and give more
satisfactory results, the same being applied by the common
japanning process. Having thus described my invention, I claim as
new, and desire to secure by letters patent, japanned furniture
springs as a new article of manufacture, substantially as and for
the purpose described.]"
The application was rejected on the 10th of July, 1868, the
following reasons being assigned by the examiner:
"The application above referred to has been examined, and is
rejected for want of patentable invention. The japanning of metal
is an old process, and no invention is shown in applying it to a
spring for a bed-bottom. It is a common right, possessed by
everyone, to galvanize, paint, or japan any metal that he may
use."
The specification was returned to the applicant. Eagleton died
in February, 1870. On December 29, 1870, the application for the
patent was renewed on the same specification, it being returned to
the Patent Office, and received there January 4, 1871, and a
reconsideration requested, the letter being signed "J. J. Eagleton,
per Munn & Co., Attorneys." Nothing further seems to have been
done until, on October 19, 1871, the specification filed was
amended by erasing the part above put in brackets, and substituting
what is in brackets in the specification of the patent as issued,
and by substituting the following as the claim:
"Having thus described my invention, I claim as new, and desire
to secure by letters patent, as
Page 111 U. S. 496
an improved article of manufacture, a japanned steel furniture
spring, made substantially as set forth."
On the 20th of October, 1871, the application was rejected, the
examiner saying:
"The above-named application has been examined on the amended
specification, but no reason can be seen for changing the action of
the office in rejecting the same July 10, 1868. The applicant is
referred to the commissioner's decision in the case of Osborn and
Drayton, November 5, 1870. The application is again rejected."
On the 31st of October, 1871, Munn & Co. wrote thus to the
office:
"In the matter of the application of J. J. Eagleton, for letters
patent for furniture springs, filed July 6, 1868, we respectfully
request a specific reference on which the rejection of the case may
be based, as provided in Rule 34 of Office Rules of Practice."
On November 3, 1871, this answer was returned:
"The applicant's letter of the 31st of October has been duly
considered. His application has been twice rejected for want of
patentable invention, and not for want of novelty. Sufficient
reasons, it was deemed, were given for its rejection, and that Rule
34 of office rules of practice is not applicable in the case. The
process of japanning is so old that it is not probable that any
person ever before applied for a patent for it. Furniture springs
have been painted, galvanized, varnished, and probably japanned, as
they are found coated with material that would require a chemical
analysis to determine of what it was composed. The former action is
affirmed."
On the 7th of November, 1871, by a letter to the office signed
"J. J. Eagleton, per Munn & Co., Attorneys," the specification
was amended by erasing the claim last presented and inserting in
lieu thereof the two claims which are in the patent as issued. The
application was again examined, and on November 17, 1871, the
patent was ordered to issue. The specification annexed to the
patent purports to be signed "J. J. Eagleton," and also to be
signed by two witnesses who signed the specification originally
filed.
The bill avers that Eagleton, having invented the improvement,
died intestate, and Sarah N. Eagleton was appointed his
administratrix, and the invention was assigned to the plaintiff and
afterwards the administratrix applied for a patent, and
Page 111 U. S. 497
complied with all the necessary conditions and requirements of
the statute, and the patent was issued. The answer states that as
to whether or not the patent was applied for or issued in the
manner and with the formalities set forth in the bill, the
defendants leave the plaintiff to proof thereof. It denies that
Eagleton was the first inventor of what is patented by the patent,
and avers that before the time of any invention thereof by
Eagleton, it was known to and used by various persons named at
various places mentioned; that the description in the patent is
obscure, and not sufficient to enable one acquainted with the art
to use the alleged process therein attempted to be described, and
for that reason the patent is void; that the description and
specification of the patent are not in such full, clear, concise,
and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which
it appertains to temper steel wire, but if the description and
specification be followed out, there will not be produced a
tempered steel furniture spring; that if the desired effect be to
temper or strengthen a steel furniture spring, then, for the
purpose of deceiving the public, the description and specification
filed by Eagleton were made to contain less than the whole truth
relative to his invention or discovery, and the patent is therefore
null and void; that any representation contained in the patent or
the specification that treating a spring as described therein
tempers it is false, and that treating a steel furniture spring as
described in the patent does not temper it. Infringement also is
denied.
The circuit court dismissed the bill, assigning its reasons in
an opinion which is found in 18 Blatchford C.C. 218. The court
decided the following points:
(1) The patent is for steel furniture springs protected by
japan, and tempered by the heat used in baking on the japan. (2)
Such springs, so protected and tempered, were known and used by
various persons named in the answer before the date of the patent.
(3) The specification which accompanied the original application
did not set forth the discovery that moderate heat, such as may be
applied in japanning, will impart temper to the springs, but set
forth merely the protection of the springs by japan. (4) Not only
does the evidence fail to show that Eagleton in fact made and
Page 111 U. S. 498
used, prior to such other persons, the invention covered by the
patent as issued, but it shows that he did not, and that probably
it never came to his knowledge while he lived. (5) Japanning, by
itself, was not patentable, and Eagleton, in the specification
which he signed and swore to, did not describe any mode of
japanning which would temper or strengthen the steel, and did not
even mention that the japan was to be applied with heat, and it now
appears that the temper and strength are produced by the heat
altogether, and not at all by the japan. (6) The only invention to
which the application and oath of Eagleton were referable was that
of merely japanning steel furniture springs; the authority given to
his attorneys was only to amend that application and ended it at
his death; the amendments made were not mere amplifications of what
had been in the application before; the patent was granted upon
them without any new oath by the administratrix, and this defense
is not required by statute to be specifically set forth in the
answer, and can be availed of under the issues raised by the
pleadings, as showing that the plaintiff has no valid patent.
We are satisfied with the conclusions arrived at by the circuit
court, and with the reasons assigned by it therefor. The copy of
the file wrapper and its contents in the matter of the patent from
the Patent Office, giving the history of the application, was put
in evidence by the plaintiff. It shows beyond doubt that there was
no suggestion in the specification signed and sworn to by Eagleton
of the invention described in the amendment filed October 19, 1871.
Prior to that time, the process practiced by the defendants, which
is the process described in letters patent No. 116,266, granted to
Alanson Cary, June 27, 1871, for an "improvement in modes of
tempering springs," was invented and put in use, and there is no
sufficient evidence that Eagleton had any knowledge, prior to the
invention by Cary of the Cary process, of either that process or of
the process described in the patent in suit. The plaintiff's patent
shows on its face that it was granted on the petition of Eagleton,
and the allegation of the bill that the patent was granted on the
application of his administratrix is not established. In view of
the entire change in the specification as to
Page 111 U. S. 499
the invention described, the patent, to be valid, should have
been granted on an application made and sworn to by the
administratrix. Act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, ยง 34, 16 Stat. 202.
The specification as issued bears the signature of Eagleton, and
not of the administratrix, and it is sufficiently shown that the
patent was granted on the application and oath of Eagleton and for
an invention which he never made. The renewed application of
December 29, 1870, was made in the name of Eagleton, though he was
dead. The letter of Munn & Co. of October 31, 1871, treats the
matter under consideration as the application of Eagleton, though
the amendment of October 19, 1871, had been made. The amendment of
November 7, 1871, was not only made in the name of Eagleton, but
the letter of that date in his name to the office states that what
is amended is in the specification in his application. Although at
some time before the issuing of the patent evidence was produced to
the office of the appointment of the administratrix and of her
assignment to the Eagleton Company, yet it is very clearly shown
that there was no application or oath by the administratrix.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.