In view of the state of the art existing at the date of the
patent granted to John F. Wollensak for an improvement in transom
lifters by original patent No. 136,801, dated March 11, 1873, and
by reissued patent No. 9,307, dated July 20, 1880, and the claims
of that patent, it must be limited to a combination, with a
transom, its lifting arm and operating rod, of a guide for the
upper end of the operating rod, prolonged beyond the junction with
the lifting arm, so as to prevent the operating rod from being bent
or displaced by the weight of the transom, and it is not infringed
by the device secured to Frank A. Reiher by patent No. 226,33,
dated April 6, 1880.
This was a bill in equity to restrain infringements of a patent.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This bill in equity was filed by the appellant to restrain the
alleged infringement by the defendant of reissued letters patent
No. 9,307, dated July 20, 1880; the original patent, No.
Page 115 U. S. 88
136,801, dated March 11, 1873, having been issued to John
Wollensak, the appellant, for an alleged new and useful improvement
in transom lifters. This appeal is from a decree dismissing the
bill for want of equity.
The specifications and drawings of the patent are as
follows:
"Figure 1 is a perspective view showing one means for carrying
my invention into operation; Fig. 2 is a side elevation of the
same, and Fig. 3 is a detached sectional view."
image:a
"Similar letters of reference in the several figures denote the
same parts."
"Transom lifters have heretofore been constructed with a long
upright rod or handle, jointed at its upper end to a lifting arm
which extends to and is connected with the side or edge of the
transom sash, the sash being opened or closed by a vertical
movement of the long rod. When thus constructed, the upright rod is
liable to be bent by the weight of the transom
Page 115 U. S. 89
owing to the want of support at or near the point of junction
between the long rod and the lifting arm."
"The object of my invention is to remedy this difficulty, and to
such end it consists in providing the proper support, or support
and guide, for the upper end of the lifting rod during its vertical
movements and while at rest."
"This may be accomplished in a variety of ways, one of which I
will now proceed to describe in detail, although I wish it clearly
understood that I do not limit my invention to this construction,
but regard it as covering broadly any construction, combination, or
arrangement of parts which shall support the long or operating rod
and prevent it from being bent or displaced by the weight of the
transom."
"In the drawings,
D is the door;
T the transom
sash, pivoted at top, bottom, or middle, as preferred;
A
the lifting arm that connects the sash to the upright rod, passing
through two guides
G G', one above and one below the point
of junction with the lifting arm;
R a friction roller,
secured to the lifting rod so as to bear against the wall and
support said rod at its point of junction with the lifting arm;
n n notches cut in the upright rod to receive the end of
the set screw, and
s a set screw, arranged, in connection
with the lower guide and the rod
U so as to be convenient
of operation for the purpose of fixing the transom at any required
angle. The upright rod is thus supported at three points, to-wit,
above, below, and at the joint where it sustains the weight of the
transom. It can also be adjusted and securely fastened so as to
open the sash as much or as little as may be desired and to lock it
in that position."
"Having thus described my invention, what I claim as new
is:"
"1. The combination, with a transom, its lifting arm and
operating rod, of a guide for the upper end of the operating rod to
prevent it from being bent or displaced by the weight of the
transom."
"2. The roller
R arranged at the junction of the
lifting arm
A and upright rod
U in a transom
lifter, substantially as and for the purpose described. "
Page 115 U. S. 90
"3. The guide
G', arranged above the junction of the
lifting arm and upright rod, in combination with the prolonged rod
U, the guide
G, and arm
A, substantially
as and for the purpose specified."
image:b
The defenses relied on were that the alleged invention was not
patentable; that it had been anticipated by Bayley and McCluskey,
to whom a patent had been granted dated July 7, 1868, No. 79,541,
for an improvement in railroad car ventilators, and that the
defendant's device, secured to him by a patent dated April 6, 1880,
No. 226,353, did not infringe that of the appellant.
Page 115 U. S. 91
The specification and drawings of the appellee's patent are as
follows:
"My object is to construct a lifter which will always be ready
for use and answer equally well for all kinds of transoms, no
matter how the same may be hinged, without exchanging or altering
any of the parts, in a simple and durable manner. In the drawings
forming part of this specification, "
image:c
Figures 1 and 2 show a front view and side elevation of my
lifter attached to a transom hinged below. Figs. 3 and 4 show the
lifter for transoms hinged above. Fig. 5 shows a front view of the
lifter attached to a ventilating opening hanging obliquely. Fig. 6
shows the lifter attached to a transom hinged sidewise. Fig. 7
shows the lifter attached to a skylight. Fig.
Page 115 U. S. 92
8 shows a front view; Fig. 9 a vertical longitudinal section,
and Fig. 10 an inverted plan of the casing. Figs. 11 and 12 show
the top of lifting rod with adjusting block. Fig. 13 shows the
lower part of the lifting rod with handle attachment.
"Like letters of reference indicate like parts."
"The casing
A, which is screwed to the door frame, is
provided on the front plate with a long slot
a. Sliding
loosely up and down in this casing
A is the adjusting
block
B, which protrudes by the ear
b, forming
part of this block, through slot
a. Affixed to block
B is the lifting rod
C in such a manner as to
allow the rod to turn in said block. For this purpose, the block is
provided with a wide slot, and shown in Figs. 9 and 12, into which
fits loosely the pin
d, which penetrates the rod
C. Attached to the transom in a position which is
regulated by and depends upon the manner of hinging the same at
about midway between the outer swinging point and the center of
hinge, is the bracket or loop
D. Attached to this loop is
the connecting link or arm
E which connects at its other
end to the ear
b of the adjusting block."
"A look at the drawings will show that the upward or downward
movement of the adjusting block, caused by the respective movement
of the lifting rod, will be followed by a swinging movement the
transom on its hinges, through the agency of the universal link or
arm
E."
"The inner face of the casing
A (shown in Fig. 9) is
provided with a series of notches
e. The upper end of the
rod
C is provided with a spiral spring
F which,
resting at one end in the hole
f of the adjusting block
B is affixed at its other end in a groove
f' at
the top of rod
C. This spring
F has the tendency
to hold the rod
C, which turns loosely in the block
B in such a position as to cause the pin
d, which
projects on both sides of the block
B, to fall into one of
the notches
e provided in the casing. Thus the rod, with
block
B and universal link
E is held in place by
the action of spring
F and pin
d, and can be
moved only by turning the rod
C slightly on its axis so as
to disengage the pin
d from the notch
e. It will
be seen that whenever the hand of the operator
Page 115 U. S. 93
should happen to loose its hold upon the rod, the spring
F will cause the pin
d to fall into the next
notch and arrest the further movement of the block
B and
thereby the movement of the transom. The transom may thus be locked
at any desired position."
"The rod
C is provided at its lower end with handle
H, arranged with an opening for the finger so that the rod
may be with convenience turned and lifted or lowered at will."
"For transoms hinged at the lower edge of the frame (shown in
Figs. 1 and 2) the transom with loop
D hangs in the
universal link
E. The casing
A, with adjusting
block, is affixed above. When operating the same, the block bears
with its shoulders
h upon the inner face of casing
A."
"For transoms hinged at the upper frame, as shown in Figs. 3 and
4, the casing is fastened below, so that the adjusting block may be
held by the lowest notch
e. While the transom is closed,
the universal link hangs downward from the loop
D. In this
case, when operated, the bearing between block and casing is
reversed, and is taken up by a pin
g, penetrating through
the ear of the block and resting upon the outer face of the casing
A."
"For oblique transoms the lifter is affixed as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 shows a transom hinged at the side. The casing of lifter is
affixed vertically at the hinged side, the adjusting block being in
the highest notch when the transom is closed."
"For transoms hinged in the middle, the lifter may be affixed
either above or below the hinged center. For skylights, the lifter
is affixed as shown in Fig. 7."
"It will be seen that the universal link
E, with its
two swiveling loop ends, will always be ready to form a connection
between the transom loop
D and the ear
b of the
adjusting block, no matter which way the transom may be
hinged."
"What I claim as my invention and desire to secure by letters
patent is:"
"1. The casing
A with a slot
a, containing the
adjusting block
B, with upright rod
C, in
combination with chain link
E and loop
D, all
arranged and constructed in the manner as shown and for the purpose
specified. "
Page 115 U. S. 94
"2. The adjusting block
B, rod
C, pin
d, and spring
F, in combination with casing
A, provided with a slot
a and notches
e
e for the purpose set forth."
The specification of the complainant's patent undertakes broadly
to describe the invention intended to be embraced in it as
"any construction, combination, or arrangement of parts which
shall support the long or operating rod and prevent it from being
bent or displaced by the weight of the transom."
But, having reference to the state of the art at the date of the
alleged invention and the claims of the patent, the patentee must
be limited to the combination with a transom, its lifting arm and
operating rod, of a guide for the upper end of the operating rod,
prolonged beyond the junction with the lifting arm so as to prevent
the operating rod from being bent or displaced by the weight of the
transom.
Putting by the question whether this is a patentable invention,
in view of the existing state of the art, the claim must be
regarded as a narrow one and limited to the particular combination
described. In that view, the defendant's arrangement is no
infringement. The difference between the two devices is pointed
out, and, as we think, satisfactorily, by Mr. Dayton, an expert
witness, on behalf of the defendant. He says:
"When the sash is opened in the Reiher transom, not an ounce of
its weight falls upon, either laterally or obliquely, the upright
rod. The Reiher transom is provided at its lower end with a block
which runs in a guide, and which is so constructed, with inner
flanges and an external pin, arranged to bear respectively upon the
inner and outer faces of the slotted guide which he employs, and
which is fixed on the frame, as to receive all the pressure
resulting from the weight of the transom. The handle or the long
upright rod in the said Reiher transom is designed and serves
wholly as a means of reaching the foot of the lifting arm, and
pushing it upward or drawing it downward. As I before stated, not a
particle of inward or lateral pressure falls upon the end of this
rod by reason of the weight of the transom. In my judgment, such
upright rod may, for this purpose, as well be absent as present. I
stated that the sole purpose of the long upright rod was to reach
and lift the foot of the block with the
Page 115 U. S. 95
end of the lifting rod. To be accurate, I also state that it
serves additionally to operate a novel locking device with which
said footpiece of the lifting arm is provided."
"So far, then, as the function of the guide G' in the Wollensak
patent or the upper guide in the numbers 1 and 3 of the Wollensak
transom model is concerned, I find that the Reiher transom presents
a totally different structure operating on a totally different
principle from that exhibited in the Wollensak transom model."
"In my judgment, the improvements of Mr. Reiher, as exemplified
in the Reiher transom exhibit, are based upon and proceed from a
totally different point in the state of the art of transom lifters
from that admitted to be old in the passage quoted from Wollensak's
patent specifications, and upon which Wollensak's improvements are
based. It is a matter of common knowledge, I believe, and it is
certainly within my personal knowledge, that transoms or flap
windows were, long prior to the date of Wollensak's original
patent, provided with a pivoted brace the foot of which was movable
against the frame of such window or door. This is precisely the
point in the art to which Mr. Reiher in his transom lifter has
applied his improvements. His improvements do not involve the
removal of the weight of the transom from a direct bearing against
the frame at the foot of the lifting arm, and have not that object.
Mr. Reiher sought evidently only to provide a ready locking device
by which the foot of the lifting arm may be secured at any point
quickly, and by which he may at once reach the locking device and
lift the transom, through the medium of the long upright rod. Said
long upright rod in his case is not, therefore, made stronger or
weaker with a view to prevent its bending, and is only strong
enough in any case to enable him to push up the foot of the lifting
arm, and by rotating the rod to unlock his novel fastening device.
There was no fault in the old structure upon which Mr. Reiher has
made his improvements like that assigned to the old device upon
which Wollensak has improved -- namely the bending of the vertical
rod having a lifting rod connected therewith -- because said
lifting arm did not, in the old device attacked by Reiher, have
any
Page 115 U. S. 96
vertical rod at all, and because the lifting arm distinctly bore
against the frame, instead of against the rod."
It follows that the decree of the circuit court, dismissing the
bill for want of equity, was correct. It is accordingly
Affirmed.