The first five claims of letters patent No. 288,494, granted to
Joseph Aron, as assignee of William W. Rosenfield, the inventor,
November 13, 1883, for an "improvement in railway car gates" are
invalid because what Rosenfield did did not require invention.
The same devices employed by him existed in earlier patents; all
that he did was to adapt them to the special purpose to which he
contemplated their application, by making modifications which did
not require invention,
Page 132 U. S. 85
but only the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill, and his
right to a patent must rest upon the novelty of the means he
contrived to carry his idea into practical application.
In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Plaintiff appealed. The
case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in equity, brought by Joseph Aron against the
Manhattan Railway Company in the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Southern District of New York to recover for the
infringement of letters patent No. 288,494, granted to the
plaintiff, as the assignee of William W. Rosenfield, the inventor,
November 13, 1883, for an "improvement in railway car gates," the
application for the patent having been filed April 3, 1883. The
circuit court, held by Judge Wallace, dismissed the bill, and the
plaintiff has appealed.
The specification of the patent says:
"In many classes of railway cars, and particularly those used
upon the elevated and other city railways, it has been found
necessary, in order to prevent passengers from falling from the
train and also to prevent persons from attempting to get off or on
a car while in motion, to provide the entrances to the car
platforms with gates by which they can be closed except at the
proper times. These gates are usually in charge of a guard or
attendant, whose duty it is to close the gates before the train
commences to move and to open them only after the train has come to
a full stop. As there is usually but one guard or attendant
stationed between each two adjoining cars, it follows that to open
or close both gates he must pass around from one to the other of
the adjoining platforms. This passing from one platform to the
other, besides being a source of annoyance to the guard, occasions
some delay, which is very annoying to the passengers,
particularly
Page 132 U. S. 86
at times when a large number are required to get off or on a car
in a very short time. It is the object of the present invention,
among other things, to provide means by which the guard or
attendant can, without changing his position, open or close both
gates simultaneously and with the least possible delay. To that
end, one feature of the invention consists in providing the gates
with connections so arranged that any two adjoining gates can be
simultaneously opened or closed by the guard while standing in the
passageway leading from one of the cars to the other."
The drawings annexed to the patent represent two ordinary
railway cars, with platforms adjoining each other, and the usual
entrances from the station platform, and gates of the ordinary
construction for closing such entrances. The gates are hinged in
the usual manner to posts which rise from the corners of the
platforms, and close against the usual jambs which project from the
sides of the cars. The platforms are provided with the usual
guardrailings, extending inward from the above-mentioned posts to
similar posts which are located a sufficient distance apart to
leave a passageway from one car to the other. When the gates are
thus arranged, it is necessary, in order to close or open both
gates, for the guard to pass from one platform around the inner
post to the opposite platform, thus causing some delay in opening
and closing one of the gates, adding to the labor of the guard, and
causing annoyance to the passengers. In order to avoid this, each
of the gates is provided at a suitable distance from its hinge,
with a curved lever, which extends rearward, and terminates a short
distance outside of the guardrailing. This lever in connected by a
link,
e, with a rod,
f, which slides in or on a
suitable bearing secured to the guardrailing, and is provided at
its inner end with a handle by which it can be operated. The guard
or attendant, while standing in the passageway, can, by grasping
the two handles and pushing or pulling the rods,
f, open
or close both gates simultaneously and without loss of time. The
specification states that the rods,
f, will preferably be
provided with some form of locking mechanism by which the
Page 132 U. S. 87
gates can be fastened in their opened or closed positions, and
that such locking may be accomplished by having the handles pivoted
to the rods,
f, as shown, and provided with extensions
which can be turned so as to extend in front of the inner posts,
and hold the gates closed, or so as to lie in the rear of lugs and
hold the gates open. It then describes an arrangement whereby the
rods,
f, and links,
e, may be placed upon the
inside of the guardrailings, as well as upon the outside, and also
an arrangement by which the connections for operating the gates
may, if desired, be placed beneath the platforms, and also an
arrangement whereby the gates may be so hinged as to lie against
the body of the car when open, instead of against the
guardrailings, and also an arrangement whereby sliding gates may be
used, instead of swinging gates.
There are six claims in the patent, only the first five of which
are involved in the present case. They are as follows:
"1. The combination, with a gate arranged to close the side
entrance to a car platform, of an operating handle, located at or
near the inner end of the platform guardrail, and means connecting
said gate and handle, whereby the attendant may open and close the
gate while standing at the end of said guardrail, substantially as
described."
"2. The combination, with gates arranged to close the side
entrances to the adjoining platforms of two cars, of operating
handles, located at or near the inner ends of the platform
guardrails, and means connecting said gates and handles, whereby
the attendant may open or close both gates simultaneously while
standing at the ends of said guardrails, substantially as
described."
"3. The combination, with a railway car and its platform, having
an end guardrail, by which a side entrance thereto is provided, of
a gate for closing said entrance, a rod, as
f, sliding in
or on guides secured to said guardrail, and a link, as
e,
connected to said gate and rod, all substantially as
described."
"4. The combination, with a railway car and its platform, having
an end guardrail, by which a side entrance thereto is provided, of
a swinging gate for closing said entrance, a rod, as
f,
sliding in or on a guide secured to said rail, a link, as
e,
Page 132 U. S. 88
connected to said gate and rod, and means for locking said gate
in its closed position, all substantially as described."
"5. The combination, with gates arranged to close the side
entrances to the adjoining platforms of two cars, of rods, as
f, sliding in or on guides secured to the guardrails of
said platforms, and links, as
e, connected to said gates
and rods, substantially as described."
The opinion of Judge Wallace is reported in 26 F. 314. The only
question he considered was that of the patentable novelty of the
improvement, saying:
"A brief reference to the prior state of the art will indicate
that the combinations referred to in the several claims are merely
an application to a new situation of old devices which had
previously been applied to analogous uses. Devices to open and
close an aperture at a distance from the operator, in a great
variety of forms, were old. As illustrations of those things which
are matters of common knowledge, and of which the court will take
judicial notice, it is sufficient to allude to the strap used by
the driver at the front of the omnibus to open and close the rear
door; to the devices for opening or closing valves at a distance,
in steam and hydraulic apparatus, and to the devices used at
railway switches for opening and closing the rails."
"Referring to the prior state of the art, as shown by various
prior patents which have been introduced in evidence, it appears
also that mechanism to open and close the entrance to passenger
cars at a point distant from the operator was likewise old, as
where the operator standing upon the front platform employed such
mechanism to open or close a door at the rear platform. One prior
patent alone -- the one granted to John Stephenson, September 15,
1874 -- shows five methods of closing and opening the rear door of
street cars from the front platform."
"Mechanism for closing and opening apertures at a distance from
the operator, in which the same devices were employed as are
employed by the patentee, was old, and is disclosed in a number of
earlier patents, which have been put in evidence. It will suffice
to refer to two only. The patent to Woolensak
Page 132 U. S. 89
of March 11, 1873, for an improvement in transom lifters,
describes the means for opening and closing the transom as
consisting of a sliding rod, which is connected by a pivoted link
to the arm of the transom frame. The patent to Carrigan, granted
April 16, 1878, for an improvement in blind adjusters, whereby
outside blinds are opened and closed without lifting the window
sash, describes as the mechanism employed a sliding bar connected
by a pivoted link with a hinged shutter. In both of these patents,
the aperture to be opened and closed at a distance from the
operator -- in the one case a shutter and in the other a transom --
is opened and closed, as is the case in the patent in suit, by
pushing or pulling the sliding rod or bar. In both of these patents
there is likewise described a locking device by means of which the
sliding rod or bar is retained in a fixed position so that the
shutter or the transom will remain fastened when opened or closed
at the option of the operator, thus showing opening, closing, and
locking apparatus in all essentials like that of the patent in
suit. Moreover, the patent to Carrigan shows this apparatus
arranged to open and close the two shutters of the window, at the
option of the operator, simultaneously, the sliding bars being so
arranged as to be pushed or pulled each by one hand of the
operator."
"Mechanism for opening and closing apertures distant from the
operator, in which the devices used for the purpose are the
mechanical equivalents of those employed by the patentee, is shown
to be old by a large number of patents which have been put in
evidence."
"This partial exhibit of the prior state of the art demonstrates
that what the patentee did was to adapt well known devices to the
special purpose to which he contemplated their application. It was
necessary that the gate should swing inward to open and outward to
close; that the sliding rod should be located where it would be out
of the way of passengers entering or leaving the platform, and that
the end or handle of the rod should be located where it could be
conveniently operated by the attendant, without inconveniencing
outgoing or incoming passengers. The new situation required
Page 132 U. S. 90
adequate modifications of existing devices for opening and
closing an aperture at a distance from the operator, appropriate to
the new occasion. Accordingly, the patentee located the rods on
bearings secured to the guardrails, with their handles near the
passageway formed by the space or opening near the middle of the
guardrail. If this required invention, his improvement was the
proper subject of a patent. He did nothing more, and nothing less,
than this. It seems impossible to doubt that any competent mechanic
familiar with devices well known in the state of the art, could
have done this readily and successfully upon the mere suggestion of
the purpose which it was desirable to effect. When it was done as
to one car platform, it was only requisite to duplicate it upon
another, to make the improvement of the patentee in all its length
and breadth."
"The patentee is entitled to the merit of being the first to
conceive of the convenience and utility of a gate opening and
closing mechanism which could be operated efficiently by an
attendant in the new situation. His right to a patent, however,
must rest upon the novelty of the means he contrives to carry his
idea into practical application. It rarely happens that old
instrumentalities are so perfectly adapted for a use for which they
were not originally intended as not to require any alteration or
modification. If these changes involve only the exercise of
ordinary mechanical skill, they do not sanction the patent, and in
most of the adjudged cases where it has been held that the
application of old devices to a new use was not patentable, there
were changes of form, proportion, or organization of this character
which were necessary to accommodate them to the new occasion. The
present case falls within this category."
We concur in these views, and affirm the decree of the
circuit court.