Letters patent No. 283,057, issued August 14, 1883, to Frank E.
Aldrich for an improvement in rubber cloths or fabrics, are void
for want of novelty.
This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent
No. 283,057, issued August 14, 1883, to Frank E. Aldrich, for an
improvement in rubber cloths or fabrics.
The patentee stated in his specification:
"My invention relates more especially to means for ornamenting
the cloth or fabric, and it consists in a rubber cloth or fabric
composed wholly or in part of rubber, having one or both of its
surfaces provided with useful or ornamental designs or figures
printed or stamped thereon with an ink or compound of a different
color or shade from the body of the fabric by means of rollers,
blocks, or in any other suitable manner, the ink or compound
preferably containing rubber, caoutchouc, gutta percha, or some
analogous material, as hereinafter more fully set forth and
claimed."
"In carrying out my invention, I take an ordinary rubber cloth,
preferably gossamer rubber cloth, or any fabric composed wholly or
in part of rubber, and print or stamp its finished surface or
surfaces with an ink or compound of a different color or shade from
the body of the goods by means of engraved rollers, blocks, types,
dies, or in any other suitable manner. I deem it preferable,
however, to use rollers, one or more being employed according to
the number of colors to be applied, and the cloth passed in cuts
through the printing machine, after the manner of printing calico
and similar goods."
"The ink or compound employed in printing the figures or designs
on the cloth or fabric is prepared as follows: take one-half pound
of rubber or caoutchouc, four quarts of naphtha,
Page 149 U. S. 558
one-half pound of red lead, and one-eighth of an ounce of
flowers of sulphur. Dissolve the gum in the naphtha, and then add
and thoroughly mix the other ingredients therewith."
"I do not confine myself to the exact proportions given, as
these may be varied considerably without materially changing the
nature of the compound, and instead of naphtha, some other solvent
may be used for the rubber if desired, although naphtha is deemed
preferable. Also, instead of the lead, litharge, pigments, shellac,
ocher, lampblack, or any other coloring matter may be employed
according to the shade or color it is desired to give the ink."
"
* * * *"
"As I propose to make the ink or printing compound described the
subject matter of other letters patent, the same is not herein
claimed when in and of itself considered."
His claims were as follows:
"1. As an improved article of manufacture, a rubber cloth or
fabric composed wholly or in part of rubber, having one or both of
its surfaces printed or stamped with useful or ornamental designs
or figures in an ink or printing compound of a different color or
shade from the body of the cloth or fabric, substantially as set
forth."
The second claim was like the first, except that the ink or
compound is described as being "composed in part of rubber,
caoutchouc, gutta percha, or some analogous substance, and a
coloring material or materials, substantially as specified."
The third claim was like the second, except that, instead of the
words, "and a coloring material or materials," there is
substituted, "and containing sulphur, or an ingredient for
rendering the ink vulcanizable."
The fourth claim was like the first, except that the cloth or
fabric is described as "varnished."
The fifth claim was also like the first, except that the ink or
printing compound is described as "analogous to the coating of the
cloth or body of the fabric, and of a different color or shade
therefrom."
The sixth claim was also like the first, except that the ink or
compound was described as "containing rubber and sulphur,
Page 149 U. S. 559
or an ingredient for vulcanizing the rubber when subjected to
heat or the sun's rays."
The seventh claim was like the sixth, except that the words "the
sun's rays" were omitted.
The answer denied that Aldrich was the inventor of any material
or substantial part of the thing patented, and gave notice of prior
patents; denied that the Aldrich patent described anything of value
or importance; averred that it was practically worthless; denied
that the invention was any advance upon the art of making rubber
fabrics, or that such fabrics had ever been practically
manufactured as described in the patent. The answer also denied
infringement.
On a hearing upon pleadings and proofs in the court below, the
bill was dismissed, 37 F. 688, and the plaintiff appealed.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The bill was dismissed by the court below upon the ground that
there was nothing novel in an article of manufacture which
consisted in printing ornamental figures upon a rubber fabric with
a colored ink composed in part of rubber.
The patent in question covers as an article of manufacture:
1. A rubber cloth or fabric, which must be composed wholly or in
part of rubber.
2. One or both of the surfaces of such fabric must be printed or
stamped with de signs in an ink or printing compound of a different
color or shade from the body of the fabric.
In these particulars all the claims agree. The last six claims
differ from the first only in describing the ink or compound either
as composed of rubber, caoutchouc, gutta percha, or some analogous
substance, or, in addition thereto, as containing
Page 149 U. S. 560
sulphur or other substance for rendering the ink vulcanizable
when subjected to heat or the sun's rays.
At the same time, while giving the composition of the ink, the
patentee expressly declares that he does not claim the same in and
of itself considered, because he proposed to make such ink or
printing compound the subject of another patent. The case then
reduces itself to the single question whether there is any novelty
in printing or stamping a rubber cloth with designs in an ink of a
different color or shade. The prior patents put in evidence show
very clearly that there is no novelty in printing or stamping upon
a rubber fabric designs of various patterns.
In the patent of December 14, 1875, to Dunbar and Lothrop for
improvement in the manufacture of floor cloths, the invention
consists
"of a product composed of a base or foundation of cheap compound
of rubber, overlaid or inlaid with a series of strips, figures, or
characters of a thin and more expensive material, which is capable
of receiving any desired color or tint, these strips or figures
being, in the final stage of the vulcanizing process, embedded in
the foundation, so that a uniformly even surface exists over the
whole."
The claim of this patent is for
"a floor cloth composed of a body of cheap material, with a
series of parallel strips in colors or neutral tints composed of a
finer quality or rubber compound, substantially as and for the
purposes stated."
In the later patent of March 30, 1880, to Brigham and others,
the object of the invention was stated to be
"to produce a light, thin, waterproof fabric for dress and
similar goods, ornamented with figures and colors to resemble
ordinary dress and similar goods which are not of the waterproof
class."
The invention consisted
"of a light, thin fabric, woven or otherwise formed, covered
with a waterproofing of rubber composition, or a composition in all
respects equivalent thereto, printed with ornamental colors and
figures (embossed or plain) to resemble ordinary dress or similar
goods."
The composition described in the patent
"is spread upon the cloth in the manner well known in the art,
and forms a basis for receiving the colors and holding them in
sharp, clear lines without
Page 149 U. S. 561
running or blurring, and so as to make well defined and
ornamental figures. . . . The product is a desirable imitation of
figured goods in ordinary colors, and having what may be called a
'cloth surface,' . . . and all the colors and beauty of appearance
of such ordinary dress and similar goods, with the valuable
quality, in addition, of capacity to resist or repel moisture."
The claim was for
"a waterproof fabric for dress and other goods, having a surface
of the described waterproof composition, and impressed with figures
and colors, as set forth."
It is difficult to see wherein the invention of Aldrich differed
in any important or patentable feature from these prior devices.
Aldrich may be entitled to a patent for his composition, but the
patent in question is not for a rubber fabric printed or stamped
with designs in any particular ink or compound, but in any ink
composed in whole or in part of rubber, etc., with or without
sulphur or other vulcanizing material. While the patent is for a
manufacture or product, it is for a product resulting from a
specified process of printing or stamping in an ink of this general
description. The composition used by Brigham is described as made
up of ten pounds of India rubber in its natural condition, and
thirty pounds of whiting as a basis. For black goods, lampblack is
added; for white goods, two pounds of zinc white; for a red color,
vermillion is used, and for other colors, other mineral pigments.
But in all cases, the rubber and whiting constitute the bulk of the
mass, though other known equivalents for rubber may be used, and
the ingredients are ground together and then dissolved in
benzine.
The ink or compound of Aldrich is composed of different
ingredients, of which, however, rubber and naphtha appear to
constitute the basis, and the alleged patentable feature consists
in printing or stamping ornamental designs with this compound upon
a rubber cloth or fabric. There does not seem to be any essential
difference in the two patents, the main difference being in the
composition used by Aldrich, which is not made the subject of his
patent. If, as is claimed by the plaintiff, the invention of
Brigham was a practical
Page 149 U. S. 562
failure and abandoned, the evidence is equally clear that
Aldrich, after putting the goods upon the market for a year and a
half, abandoned the business, and has not resumed it. There does
not seem to be much to choose between them in this particular.
This case is substantially like that of
Underwood v. Gerber,
ante, 149 U. S. 224,
decided at the present term, in which the patentee claimed a fabric
coated with a composition composed of precipitate of dye matter, in
composition with oil, wax, or oleaginous matter, without claiming
the composition of this matter. The patent was treated as one for
applying the composition to paper, and was found to be without
novelty.
The decree of the court below will therefore be
Affirmed.
