The first claim under letters patent No. 173,284, dated February
8, 1876, granted to Charles H. Helms for an improvement in
sole-edge burnishing machines, namely, "in combination with the
burnishing tool, and the rest for the face of the sole, the finger
rest D, substantially as described" falls within the many rulings
of this Court holding that a mere aggregation of old elements in a
new relation is not the subject of a patent.
Page 139 U. S. 531
This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent
No. 173,284, issued February 8, 1876, to Charles H. Helms for an
improvement in sole edge burnishing machines. In the introduction
to his specifications, the patentee stated that his machine
consisted
"of a head or standard carrying a tool holder, holding a tool
for setting or burnishing the edges of the soles of boots and
shoes, and a finger rest to aid the workman in holding the edge up
to the tool, and the face of the sole against the rest, which is
just below the burnishing part of the tool."
After describing his machine by reference to the drawings, he
stated his operation to be as follows:
"The workman holds the shoe firmly in his hands and thus
presents the edge to be burnished to the tool, which reciprocates
with great rapidity; about 1,800 times per minute, I find, gives
the best results. The workman passes [presses] the edge up against
the tool, and the fact of the sole against the surface which
projects below the tool, and gradually moves the shoe so as to
bring all parts of the edge to its action, steadying the shoe by
the aid of the finger rest D, especially when burnishing the
corners of the toes. A little experience is necessary to enable the
workman to use the machine to great advantage, but a skilled
workman can do a very large quantity of work second to none in
quality. The combination of the finger rest D with the burnishing
tool and the rest for the face of the sole is the main feature of
my invention."
The only claim alleged to be infringed was the first, which
reads as follows:
"In combination with the burnishing tool and the rest for the
face of the sole, the finger rest D, substantially as
described."
There were two other patents originally set forth in the bill,
but by stipulation they were stricken out.
The defenses set up in answer were 1, the in validity of the
first claim of the patent, which was the only one relied upon by
the plaintiff, and 2, noninfringement.
Upon the hearing in the circuit court, the bill was at first
sustained, but, upon a rehearing, dismissed. The first opinion of
the court is reported in 28 F. 715, and the opinion upon rehearing
in 31 F. 46.
Page 139 U. S. 532
The errors assigned were:
1. That the court decided that the combination set forth in the
first claim was not patentable.
2. That the court decided that neither of the three elements of
the combination named in the first claim performed any new
function.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the facts as above, delivered
the opinion of the Court.
The machine described in this patent is designed for burnishing
the edges of the sole of a boot or shoe after it has been trimmed
by a cutter to the desired shape, and consists of a combination of
three elements:
1. A tool for burnishing sole edges.
2. A lip or guard, which forms part of the tool.
3. A finger rest.
After the sole is outlined and cut in proper shape, it is first
required to be trimmed and then to be burnished, so as to present a
neat and finished appearance. The burnishing tool must be of the
same shape in outline as the trimming tool in order to properly
burnish the parts of the edge which have been shaved or trimmed by
the cutting tool. Cutting or trimming the edge of the sole and
burnishing the same with a tool have been practiced time out of
mind in the art of making shoes, but within the past fifty years
there has grown up a separate business in the manufacture of edge
trimmers and edge burnishers, the outline of each tool
corresponding with that of the other. The machine shown and
described in the Helms patent in suit consists of a reciprocating
tool holder, carrying an ordinary burnishing tool, and an
adjustable finger rest or hook, the front surface of which projects
just below the tool. The function of the tool is to burnish the
edge of the sole in the same manner as when the sole is burnished
by hand, the face of the burnishing tool corresponding to that of
the cutter which has been used to trim the edge to the desired
shape.
Page 139 U. S. 533
The function of the finger rest or hook is to furnish a support
to the finger and steady the hand of the operator when burnishing
the sole edge, especially when burnishing the corners of the
toe.
The controversy between these parties turns largely upon the
meaning of the words "rest for the face of the sole," as used in
the first claim of the patent, which reads as follows: "In
combination with the burnishing tool and the rest for the face of
the sole, the finger rest D, substantially as described." While
these words are used several times in the specifications, the rest
is nowhere exactly located, nor is it lettered or otherwise
indicated upon the drawing. The plaintiff contended that it
referred to the guard or lower flange of the burnishing tool, which
it claimed performed this additional function of affording a rest
for the face of the sole, while the defendant insisted that it
referred to the upper part of the finger rest or hook.
If it refers to the upper part of the finger rest, then it is
admitted that the defendant does not infringe; if it refers to the
lower flange of the burnishing tool, a further question arises as
to whether there is any novelty in the combination.
Some light is thrown upon this question by a reference to the
file wrapper and contents, which are spread upon the record. In his
original application, Helms states that his machine consists
"of a head or standard carrying a tool holder holding a tool for
setting or burnishing the edges of the soles of boots and shoes,
and a finger rest to aid the workman in holding the edge up to the
tool."
The finger rest, D, he describes as a
"hook-shaped piece secured to the head near the tool, as shown
in the drawings. For convenience, it is mounted upon a tang, which
is held by a set screw. It should be made of some nonconductor of
heat or else be wrapped with some nonconducting wrapper."
In its operation, he says,
"the workman presses the edge up against the tool and gradually
moves the shoe so as to bring all parts of the edge to its action,
steadying the shoe by that aid of the finger rest D, especially
when burnishing the corners of the toes."
He winds up his specification by saying that
"the finger rest D is the main feature of my invention, all the
other points of
Page 139 U. S. 534
novelty of my machine relating to new combinations of old
elements,"
and claims:
1. In a burnishing machine, the finger rest D, constructed and
operating substantially as described.
2. The combination of the finger rest D, the burnishing tool,
and the elastic holder B, as set forth.
The third claim is immaterial.
One thing is clearly apparent from this, and it cannot be better
stated than the patentee himself has stated it -- namely that the
finger rest D was the main feature of his invention. To this
application for a patent, the examiner having the matter in charge
replied that his first claim was anticipated in the patent of B. J.
Tayman, March 11, 1873, No. 136,790. The Tayman patent, which is
made an exhibit, shows a finger rest identical with that of the
patent in suit. In view of this rejection, he amended his
application by erasing the first clause of his claim, and
substituting the following: "1. In combination with the burnishing
tool and the rest for the face of the sole, the finger rest D,
substantially as described." To this the examiner replied as
follows:
"Attention is called to the fact that the finger rest in the
above-cited case is stated to be the main feature of the alleged
invention. A rest for the same purpose is shown in Tayman's patent,
and the other elements claimed in combination have been shown by
the references to be old separately, and if the finger rest
performs any new function in this instance, in combination with the
tool and holder here used, it should be clearly stated. It is not
understood what is meant by the words in the first claim now
presented,
viz., 'the rest for the face of the sole.'
Additional amendment is therefore necessary before the case can be
further considered."
Again the patentee amended his application, 1st, by inserting,
immediately after the words "to aid the workman in holding the edge
up to the tool," the words "and the face of the sole against the
rest which is just below the burnishing part of the tool;" 2d, by
inserting immediately after the words "the workman presses the edge
up against the tool" the words "and the face of the sole against
the surface which projects below
Page 139 U. S. 535
the tool." It will be observed here that in this first
amendment, the rest is described as just below the burnishing part
of the tool. If the burnishing part of the tool be confined to the
flat portion or bed, then the word "rest" would indicate that it
was intended to apply to the lower flange. But amendment 2 would
indicate that by the "rest" was meant the surface which projects
below the tool, not below the burnishing part of the tool, and
therefore forming no part of the tool, which would tend to support
the claim of the defendant that it was intended to apply to the
upper part of the finger rest, which is the only surface which
projects below the tool. 3. By erasing the paragraph immediately
before the words, "What I claim as my invention is," and
substituting therefor the following:
"The combination of ten finger rest D with the burnishing tool
and the rest for the face of the sole is the main feature of my
invention; all the other points of novelty in my machine also
relate to new combinations of old elements."
This also would indicate that the rest for the face of the sole
was something distinct both from the finger rest and from the
burnishing tool, which is impossible, as it must necessarily form a
part of one of them.
The changes between the specification and claims contained in
his original application and those finally allowed are shown in the
following parallelism, the amendments being italicized:
"
Original Specification"
"My machine is extremely simple, and consists of a head or
standard carrying a tool holder holding a tool for setting or
burnishing the edges of the soles of boots and shoes, and a finger
rest to aid the workman in holding the edge up to the tool. "
Page 139 U. S. 536
"The workman presses the edge up against the tool, and gradually
moves the shoe so as to bring all parts of the edge to its action,
steadying the shoe by the aid of the finger rest D, especially when
burnishing the corners of the toes."
"The finger rest D is the main feature of my invention; all the
other points of novelty in my machine relating to new combinations
of old elements."
"What I claim as my invention is first, in a burnishing machine,
the finger rest D, constructed and operating substantially as
described."
"
Patent Allowed"
"My machine is extremely simple, and consists of a head or
standard carrying a tool holder holding a tool for setting or
burnishing the edges of the soles of boots and shoes, and a finger
rest to aid the workman in holding the edge up to the tool,
and
the face of the sole against the rest which is just below the
burnishing part of the tool."
"The workman presses the edge up against the tool,
and the
face of the sole against the surface which projects below the
tool, and gradually moves the shoe so as to bring all parts of
the edge to its action, steadying the shoe by aid of the finger
rest D, especially when burnishing the corners of the toes."
"The
combination of the finger rest D
with the
burnishing tool and the rest for the face of the sole is the
main feature of my invention; all the other points of novelty in my
machine also relate to new combinations of old elements."
"What I claim as my invention is 1.
in combination with the
burnishing tool and the rest for the face of the sole, the
finger rest D, substantially as described."
From this it is entirely clear that the patentee supposed
originally that he was the inventor of the finger rest, but upon
being referred to the Tayman patent, and finding that he had been
anticipated, he resorted to the device of "a rest for the face of
the sole" to save his patent. Not only is the location of this rest
left in considerable doubt as a matter of construction from the
face of the patent, but the oral evidence as to the intention of
the patentee and as to the actual operation of the machine is
scarcely less ambiguous. When first called as a witness, the
patentee Helms stated:
"What I intended to be the rest for the face of the sole, when
burnishing a shoe edge, was a finger hook so constructed that it
would at once answer for a rest for the sole of a shoe and a
Page 139 U. S. 537
guide to help the operator to steady the shoe under the action
of the polisher while in motion by grasping the hook with his
finger."
In answer to the question, "Please point out upon the exhibit
Helm's model, the part referred to in the patent as the rest for
the face of the sole," he said, "That part I should designate as
below the polisher and on the front of the hook." He again states
that it was his original intention to keep the tread or bottom of
the sole in contact with the face of the finger hook while
burnishing the toe portion of the shoe, and that it was feasible on
a great many kinds of goods. He also states that the drawing of the
patent shows, according to his judgment, that the tread or bottom
of the sole does not touch the front face of the finger rest,
"which appears to me to differ somewhat from the real intention
shown by me." On being subsequently recalled, however, and being
shown the Patent Office model of his patent, he says he should not
think it possible to polish the sole properly on a machine of that
pattern while holding the face of the sole against the finger rest,
and, upon being asked what he intended to be the rest for the face
of the sole in burnishing sole edges with such machine at the time
he filed his application for patent, says:
"I shall have to say that when I filed the application for this
patent, which the model represents, that it must have been the back
lip of the polisher shown in the model."
In fact, his testimony is so confused and contradictory that it
is impossible to make anything out of it except that, on finding
his finger rest to have been anticipated, he fell back upon the
rest for the face of the sole, as a
dernier resort, to
save his patent, without clearly understanding in his own mind what
was meant by the words.
A witness who had used the machine at a factory in Albany
testified that during four seasons, he burnished sole edges on the
Helms machine, always resting the face of the sole against the
finger-hook. Another, who was foreman of a shop at Brockton,
Massachusetts, testified that when the machine was first used, they
placed the face of the shoe against the tool and the face of the
sole against the finger rest, and so used it for
Page 139 U. S. 538
about four weeks. It would appear from this testimony that the
patentee's original idea was that the front face of the finger rest
constituted a rest for the face of the sole, and that in accordance
therewith, the first machines were made with the finger rest
projecting far enough forward under the burnishing tool to furnish
a rest for the sole. This, however, was found to be impracticable,
and the use of the upper part of the finger hook as a rest seems to
have been abandoned, and the claim made that the lower flange was
intended as a rest. The truth seems to be that if the finger rest
be moved far enough forward, and the front surface shaped at the
proper angle, the face of the sole can be rested thereon, but when
moved some distance back, it becomes impracticable.
We do not find it necessary, however, to express a decided
opinion as to the construction of this patent. In view of the
ambiguity of the language used, and of the confusion and
contradiction in the oral testimony, we prefer to adopt the
construction contended for by the plaintiff and dispose of the case
upon another ground. Conceding the plaintiff's construction to be
correct, and reading the first claim as if the rest for the face of
the sole were a distinct element, we find the combination of this
claim to consist (1) of a burnishing tool; (2) a flange at the
lower edge of such tool, against which the operator may rest the
sole; (3) a finger rest. All of these elements are old. Burnishing
tools have been employed for finishing off the edges of boot soles
from time immemorial, and the flange or guard which the patentee
dignifies as a rest for the face of the sole was attached to the
old hand tools before the invention of burnishing machines, and has
since been attached to machines operated by power, as shown in
patent No. 28,181, to Elias T. Ingalls, which describes a
reciprocating tool having a flange or guard, called in the patent
"a horizontal lip," which bears on the face of the sole. It may be
true that Helms was the first to use a burnishing tool having a
guard, in connection with a finger rest, and that his machine is
probably superior to other devices of like design, but as all of
these elements were old, and no new function is performed by the
combination, it is a case of mere aggregation,
Page 139 U. S. 539
which it is well settled is not patentable. The Tayman patent
shows the finger rest in connection with a cutter for trimming the
edge of the sole at one end of a shaft at the other end of which is
a revolving burnisher, to which Tayman did not see fit to attach
his finger rest. It certainly did not require invention to change
the finger rest from one end of the shaft to the other, or to
attach it to a reciprocating instead of a revolving burnisher, both
being old, nor does it add to its importance to change the name of
the guard or lip, and call it a rest for the face of the sole.
Undoubtedly the result is a more perfect machine, but it is
simply more perfect because of the cooperation of a greater number
of elements, and not because of any new function performed by the
combination. Counsel for the plaintiff has made a most ingenious
argument to show that a new function is performed by the
combination in determining the tilt or slant of the sole by the
angle required of the edge with the tread. But that is rather an
incident to the operation of the machine, attributable to the skill
and deftness of the operator, than any new and distinct function
belonging to the machine itself.
If any separate function had been performed by this combination,
it is somewhat singular that the patentee did not call attention to
it in his original application, or until after the main feature of
his patent was shown to have been anticipated. We think that this
patent falls within the many rulings of this Court holding that a
mere aggregation of old elements in a new relation is not the
subject of a patent.
Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S.
347;
Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U.
S. 310;
Stephenson v. Brooklyn Cross-Town
Railroad, 114 U. S. 149;
Hendy v. Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370;
Hailes v. Van
Wormer, 20 Wall. 353.
It results that the decree of the court below dismissing the
bill must be
Affirmed.