In view of the previous state of the art, the first claim in
letters patent No. 279,871, issued June 19, 1883, to Charles Hoff
of Cincinnati for an improvement in coal hods, must be limited to
the entire bottom of the crimped material and the resultant
increase in its thickness, and, being so limited, it is not
infringed by a coal hod made after letters patent No. 304,033,
granted August 26, 1884, to Henry S. Reynolds.
Whether both patents were not void for want of novelty,
quaere.
This was a bill in equity to recover damages for the
infringement of letters patent No. 279,871, issued June 19, 1883,
to Charles Hoff, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for an improvement in coal
hods. In his specifications, the patentee stated that his invention
related "to coal hods and similar sheet metal vessels," and its
object "to produce a stronger and better article than those in
common use at a less cost of labor and material." He stated his
invention to consist "in forming the bucket from a blank so shaped
as to be bent into a cone or funnel-shaped body, then folding the
cone end of said body in crimps to form the bottom." There were two
claims to the patent, namely:
"1. The method of forming the body of a coal hod or other
similar vessel which consists, substantially as before set
forth,
Page 139 U. S. 327
in first forming a cone-shaped body from a suitable blank, then
folding in the cone end of said body in crimps to form the
bottom."
"2. As a new article of manufacture, a coal hod formed of a
single piece, and having its bottom crimped or folded to form a
series of annular ribs or rings of progressively increasing
diameter, substantially as shown and described."
The defenses were in substance:
"1. That in view of the prior state of the art as disclosed by
various patents and devices, there was no novelty in the
invention."
"2. That defendant did not infringe."
The circuit court at first rendered a decree for the plaintiff,
27 F. 307, and subsequently, upon a rehearing, dismissed the bill,
31 F. 45.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the facts as above, delivered
the opinion of the Court.
The essence of the Hoff patent consists in his method of
manufacture, by taking a blank sheet of metal of the proper size
and shape, folding it in the form of a cone, and then crimping the
smaller end to form the bottom, which is thus made much thicker and
more durable than the sides. The bottom shown in his drawings is
composed of a series of concentric rings, but he states in his
specifications that he does not desire to limit himself to any
particular form of crimp or fold for the bottom of the hod, since
it is evident that the form of the fold may be changed and still
have the tapering end of the blank compressed to force the surplus
metal to fold over and strengthen the bottom, and it is also
evident that the blank may be varied to suit different shapes of
hods.
To ascertain the exact scope of this patent, it is necessary to
examine the state of the art at the time it was issued. The
Page 139 U. S. 328
crimping or doubling in of the ends of paper packages has, of
course, been a common practice from time immemorial. The patent to
George Smith, No. 124,093, issued February 27, 1872, exhibits a
coal hod in the shape of an inverted hollow cone, the apex of the
cone being the bottom and center of the hod. It differs from any
ordinary coal hod only in dispensing with the ordinary horizontal
bottom, and contains no suggestion of the crimping process, which
is the main feature of the Hoff patent hod, although a method is
suggested of repairing the bottom of the hod by the substitution of
a new cone, which constitutes the chief feature of the
invention.
The patent to Edward F. O'Toole, May 22, 1877, No. 191,071,
exhibits a coal hod formed of a blank piece of metal, forced into a
series of vertical crimps upon both sides of the hod. The crimps
begin at the bottom of the hod and widen toward the top. The
bottom, however, is rectangular and composed of a single sheet of
metal, so that the hod is really the weakest at the part which is
subjected to the greatest wear.
Patent No. 199,370, of January 22, 1878, to Isaac F. Kearns,
relates to a method of strengthening or reenforcing those parts of
tin vessels most subject to wear and strain, in forming upon the
bottom of the vessel a fold, which is bent up against the bottom
until it is flat, so that at the fold there are three thicknesses
of metal in close contact to resist wear at this exposed point.
After being thus provided with the flattened fold, the vessel is
retinned, so that the crevices on the inside and outside are closed
and water excluded from the fold. This, though evidently for a
bottom-forming process, contains but a faint suggestion of the
patent in suit, both the process of manufacture and the result
being entirely different from those shown in plaintiff's
patent.
The patent to Clark and Wells, No. 221,522, of November 11,
1879, for an improvement in metallic baskets, exhibits a body made
of a rectangular blank or piece of sheet metal, which is bent in
cylindrical form, with the ends of the sheet metal overlapping each
other and riveted, while the metal is straight. The corrugations
are made broad and shallow at
Page 139 U. S. 329
their upper ends, near the top of the basket, and then gradually
decrease in width and increase in depth toward the bottom. It is
somewhat similar in principle to the O'Toole patent, and, like
that, differs from the plaintiff's in failing to provide for an
increased thickness for the bottom, which is an ordinary one and
secured to the body by the usual seaming process.
The English patent to George Hazeltine, of December 19, 1873, is
for "improvements in cylindrical and other boxes, cases, cans, and
similar vessels, and in apparatus for the manufacture of the same."
While many of the articles enumerated in his patent are evidently
contemplated to be made of paper or pasteboard, he expressly
describes his product as consisting "of a box or other vessel of
any suitable material, when constructed by folding, crimping,
swaging, or compressing," and the use of the mandril, punch, and
die in the formation of his boxes indicates that he is dealing with
substances not easily flexible. The result is a box of any suitable
material made by crimping or folding a portion of a previously
prepared tube or hollow cylinder in such a manner as to form the
closed end thereof, or, as described in his sixth claim, "an oval
box formed from a tube or hollow cylinder, when the bottom of the
same is made by folding or crimping in a portion of the body
thereof." Even if the only material contemplated by Hazeltine were
pasteboard, the adaptation of the same method of manufacture to a
stiff material like zinc or sheet iron would not necessarily
involve invention, so long as the process of manufacture is
practically the same. His results are practically the same as those
obtained by the Hoff patent, except that it would appear from the
Hazeltine drawings that he did not contemplate that the entire
bottom of the box should be formed of the crimped materials, but
that the center should be made of another piece of metal, over
which the ends of the side pieces are crimped to form a solid
bottom. The exhibit "Old Zinc Cylinder" is an application of the
Hazeltine idea to the formation of a metallic cylinder for holding
a roll of sheet zinc, and consists of a metal case or body in which
the ends or bottoms are formed in part of the same piece of
metal
Page 139 U. S. 330
which forms the sides, such metal being folded afterwards into
crimps and the crimps flattened down over a wooden head which is
held in place by nails driven through the periphery of the cylinder
into the rim of the head.
Conceding, then, that it was old to crimp in and fold the ends
of cylindrical cartridges and boxes of pasteboard or other stiff
material, as shown in the Hazeltine patent, and also that it was
old to turn the edge of metallic cylindrical vessels or packages to
hold separate bottoms or heads of such vessels and packages, it is
evident that if the first claim of the Hoff patent can be supported
at all, it can only be for the formation of the
entire
bottom of the crimped material, and the resultant increase in its
thickness.
Defendant is making a coal hod after a patent granted to Henry
S. Reynolds, No. 304,033, dated August 26, 1884, the principal
advantages of which are declared by the patentee to be an increase
of strength and durability of the vessel and a decrease of the cost
of production. To accomplish these objects he
partially
forms the bottom out of the metal forming the body, and closes the
aperture and completes the bottom by a cap. The blank is cut out in
the ordinary way, and is then formed up by bending its edges around
and uniting them to form the body. The next operation consists in
placing the body in an inverted position, in a stamping press of
the requisite power, and subjecting it to compression between dies,
of suitable shape, to fold its lower edge inwardly, and to form a
series of ribs tapering toward the center. The next step consists
in placing the body in a press, and, by the action of another set
of dies, flattening the ribs and thereby partially forming the
bottom of the vessel out of a portion, and in one piece with the
body, the walls of the ribs folding in upon the metal between them,
and thus increasing the thickness of a portion of the bottom, and
consequently increasing its strength and durability. To finish the
bottom, he employs a cap punched out of sheet metal, inserted in
the partially completed bottom, its rim resting upon the inside and
its body projecting through the aperture, and so flattened down
upon the crimps as to completely close the aperture and bind the
ribs. Under
Page 139 U. S. 331
the narrow construction we are compelled to give the Hoff
patent, it is evident this is no infringement. Whether the result
produced be or be not inferior to the Hoff hod, of course, is not
involved in this case. It may be true that Reynolds conceived the
idea of his hod from an examination of the Hoff device; but he is
nonetheless entitled to claim that the Hoff patent had been
anticipated by prior devices, especially when such prior devices
appear to show a complete anticipation of his own. Indeed, both of
these parties seem to have been gleaning in a field already open to
the public.
It is clear that the second claim of the Hoff patent for "a coal
hod formed of a single piece, and having its bottom crimped or
folded to form a series of annular ribs or rings of progressively
increasing diameter," is not infringed by the Reynolds device, as
no such rings or ribs or anything approximating to them is shown in
the defendant's hod.
The decree of the court below must be
Affirmed.