The fifth claim in reissued letters patent No. 9,542, granted
January 25 1881, to Joseph Tilton and Rufus M. Slivers for a spring
for vehicles, on the surrender of letters patent No. 157,430, dated
December 1, 1874, is an expansion of the invention described in the
original patent, and the reissue is thus invalidated.
Letters patent No.197,689, granted November 27, 1877, to Henry
Timken for improvement in carriage springs, are void for want of
patentable novelty in the invention so patented.
Letters patent No. 239,850, granted April 5, 1881, to Cyrus W.
Saladee for an improvement in spring supports for vehicles, wagon
seats, etc., relate to a device which was anticipated by another
invention made more than two years prior to the application for
that patent and reduced to practice prior to that application, and
by other inventions named in the opinion of the Court, and are void
for want of patentable novelty.
This was a bill in equity, filed by Henry Timken in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio
against Thomas D. Olin and Edwin D. Olin to restrain the
infringement of three letters patent, namely, No. 197,689, granted
to Henry Timken, November 27, 1877, for improvement in "carriage
springs;" No. 239,850, to C. W. Saladee, April 5, 1881, for "road
wagon;" reissue patent No. 9,542,
Page 155 U. S. 142
granted January 25, 1881, being a reissue of patent No. 157,430,
to Tilton & Stivers, for improvement in "springs for vehicles,"
dated December 1, 1874. Complainant charged that these patents were
capable of conjoint use with each other, and that defendants
infringed them all. The answer set up want of patentability;
anticipation; prior public use; noninfringement; that defendants
had the right to manufacture the vehicle springs they made, under a
patent (No. 246,571) granted to W. H. Stickle, August 30, 1881,
reissued to the defendant Thomas D. Olin, August 21, 1883, as
reissue No. 10,372, and which patent was owned by the defendants;
also, that the Tilton & Stivers' reissue was utterly void,
because not issued for the same invention as the original patent,
and for inventions not shown or described therein. The circuit
court held the patents valid, and that the defendants infringed the
single claims of the Timken and Saladee patents, and the third,
fourth, and fifth claims of the Tilton & Stivers' patent, and
entered a decree enjoining defendants, and referring the cause to a
master for an account, which resulted in a final decree for damages
to the amount of $27,897.75, and defendants appealed. The opinion
will be found in 37 F. 205.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the facts in the
foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants manufactured no buggies or vehicles of any kind, but
purchased and made springs which were fitted on wooden bars to be
attached to the vehicles, and sold such spring bars in the market,
and to manufacturers of vehicles. The claims of the three patents
on which appellee's suit was based were to combinations relating to
side-bar buggies and wagons, the side-bar gear and buggy body being
elements of each combination. These patents are as follows:
Page 155 U. S. 143
1. No. 197,689, declared to be for "improvement in carriage
springs," was granted to Henry Timken, November 27, 1877, upon
application filed October 27, 1877. The drawings consisted of three
figures: (1) A side view of a wagon body with a spring attached;
(2) a bottom view of a wagon, showing the spring, and (3) "a
sectional end view thereof."
The latter figure is as follows:
image:a
The specification states:
"My invention relates to buggy and wagon springs, and it
consists in the attachment of springs to the bottom of the body at
the sides, and crossing the bottom of the body, and connecting with
the side-bars on the opposite sides of the body, as will be
hereinafter more fully set forth."
"The annexed drawing, to which reference is made, fully
illustrates my invention."
"A represents the hind axle, and A' the front axle, the latter
having the usual head block, B. The hind axle, A, and head block,
B, are connected by side-bars CC, in the usual manner. D represents
the body of the vehicle."
"The body, D, is connected to the side-bars, CC, by means of two
springs, GG, composed of one or more plates near each end. These
springs are fastened to the under side of the body, D, at opposite
sides. The springs then cross each other, and their ends are
pivoted or hinged in clips, II, fastened to the opposite side-bars,
as shown."
"By this construction and arrangement of the springs, I secure
length of springs and elasticity of motion, and at the same time
hanging the body low. "
Page 155 U. S. 144
"What I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent,
is"
"In combination with the side-bars, CC, and body, D, the
springs, GG, attached to the under side of the body at opposite
sides, then crossing each other, and connected to the side-bars on
opposite sides, substantially as herein set forth."
2. No. 9,542, reissue, dated January 25, 1881, upon application
filed November 27, 1880, being a reissue of patent No. 157,430, to
Tilton and Stivers, for springs for vehicles, dated December 4,
1874, upon application filed November 25, 1874.
The specification of the original patent read thus:
"The object of the present invention is to provide springs
designed especially for buggies, carriages, and other light
vehicles which shall obviate all rocking motion of the body
supported thereon and cause the latter to be always maintained in a
horizontal position when moving up or down or when in a stationary
position."
"The invention consists in the employment of two independent
crossed-leaf metal springs the ends of which are rigidly secured to
the opposite ends of the cross-bar supporting the vehicle body,
each spring being formed or provided with a socket, and the two
sockets meeting each other at the center of the body supporting bar
so as to enable an axis or pivot bolt to be passed through both
sockets for enabling the springs to turn thereon when the body is
elevated or depressed. The invention further consists in securing a
bearing and reenforcing plate of metal to the under side of the
body supporting bar, said plate being provided with pendent flanges
at both ends, to serve as bearing points for the ends of the
springs, in order to prevent any lateral movement of the same, and
to serve, in connection with fastening bolts, to securely hold the
springs in place."
"
* * * *"
"It is well known that elliptic or semi-elliptic springs,
secured to the center of the cross-bar supporting a carriage body,
will permit the same to rock from side to side, which is
objectionable for various reasons."
"I propose to maintain a buggy, carriage, and other vehicle
Page 155 U. S. 145
body always in a horizontal position in respect to the springs
and running gear, and this is accomplished by employing a pair of
springs, AA, which may properly be termed sections of semi-elliptic
springs. The springs are arranged to cross each other at the center
of the cross-bar, B, upon which the carriage body is placed, and
their elevated or upper ends are permanently secured at the
opposite ends of said cross-bars by means of bolts and nuts,
a. Each spring is provided with a socket,
c, at
the crossing point, and through said sockets, which are thus
brought in line with each other, an axis or pivot bolt, D, is
passed. A nut,
b, is applied to the screw-threaded
projecting end of the bolt for securing the same in place. Each
spring is generally formed of two or more leaves -- a long lower
leaf and a shorter upper leaf -- this construction being resorted
to in order to obtain greater strength and to enable the socket, C,
to be more readily formed."
"
* * * *"
The claims were as follows:
"1. The combination of two springs, each composed of one or more
leaves, and hinged together at their crossing point, and provided
with an eye at one end to connect with the side sills of the
running gear, and at the other end connected with the cross-bar for
supporting the body of the vehicle, substantially as
described."
"2. The two leaf springs, each provided with a socket at their
crossing point, in combination with a pivot or axis bolt,
substantially as described."
"3. The combination of two springs side by side, and connected
together, with the side sills and cross-bar, for supporting the
body in a horizontal position between the side sills, substantially
as described."
"4. The reenforcing and bearing plate, I, having end flanges, in
combination with the body supporting bar and the connected cross
springs, substantially as described."
The specification was amended in the reissue by substituting
"cross-piece attached to the body," for "cross-bar supporting the
vehicle body," "the body supporting bar," or "bar supporting the
body;" and also by inserting after the word
Page 155 U. S. 146
"spring," in the line reading, "each spring being formed or
provided with a socket," the word "preferably," and after the words
"spring is," in the line reading, "each spring is provided with a
socket,
c, at the crossing point," the word
"preferably."
The original claims were changed in the reissue by the
substitution in the first claim of "cross-piece attached to the
body," for "cross-bar for supporting the body," and the word
"cross-piece" for "cross-bar" in the third claim, and omitting the
word "and" after "reenforcing," and the substitution of the
"cross-piece attached to the body" for the "body supporting bar" in
the fourth claim, and a fifth claim was added as follows:
"(5) In combination with the body of a vehicle and the side
sills or bars, the two springs crossing each other side by side and
attached to a cross-piece, substantially as described."
3. No. 239,850, to C. W. Saladee for road wagon, dated April 5,
1881; application filed February 7, 1881. The claim is:
"A spring platform consisting of flexion springs arranged in
pairs, the inner, heavier ends of each pair being connected, side
by side, to the central portion of the body or object supported,
and the flexion portion of each spring curving downward from the
center, and then upward to its connection with the frame, all
substantially as set forth."
It will be perceived that the third claim of the reissued Tilton
patent includes as a necessary element two springs side by side,
and connected together; the fourth claim includes the connected
cross-springs and the reenforcing plate, having end flanges; while
the fifth claim is substantially the same as the single claim of
the Timken patent. Both have the two springs crossing each other,
though in the Timken claim these springs must be connected at the
heavier ends at the opposite side from which the light ones are
connected with the side-bar. It seems clear that the fifth claim
was intended to cover sectional cross-springs without the
articulated joint in the center, and it does cover such springs if
the word "preferably," introduced for the first time in the
reissue, is not an expansion of the invention described in the
original patent; but we cannot concur with the learned circuit
judge in his
Page 155 U. S. 147
conclusion that the insertion of that word did not unduly expand
the original, and so invalidate the reissue. The original patent
made no reference to an alternative construction with the pivot
bolt omitted, while the new matter made the connection of claims
three and four (which remained practically unchanged in terms), if
broadly construed, only a preferable mode. As the patent originally
stood, the connection of the cross-springs was an essential element
of the claim; but if the reissue were valid, the bolt coupling the
two springs together at their center and forming an articulated
joint would in effect be eliminated. The application for reissue
was not filed until November 27, 1880, while the original patent
was dated December 1, 1874, and the reissue was thus made by
expansion to cover structures in public and common use between
those two dates.
Huber v. Nelson Manufacturing Co., 148 U.
S. 270, is much in point. There, one Boyle obtained a
patent for a sanitary closet, including as an essential element of
the claim a flushing chamber, and subsequently applied for a
reissue for the purpose of eliminating that chamber; but this, it
was held, could not be done.
The object of the original Tilton invention was declared to be
to provide carriages or other vehicles with springs to prevent the
rocking motion of the body supported thereon, and it was stated in
the specification:
"It is well known that elliptic or semi-elliptic springs secured
to the center of the cross-bar of the carriage body will permit the
same to rock from side to side. It is objectionable for various
reasons."
It was proposed to remedy this by taking springs of the form
shown, which might be properly termed sections of semi-elliptic
springs, and arranging them to cross each other on the center of
the cross-bar upon which the body was placed, each spring being
provided with a socket at the crossing point, and a pivot bolt
passing through both springs, secured by a nut, this coupling
preventing them from moving independently of each other. In the
first claim the words were used, "hinged together at their crossing
point;" in the second claim, "two leaf springs, each provided with
a socket at their crossing point;" in the
Page 155 U. S. 148
third claim, "the combination of two springs side by side, and
connected together, with the side sills and cross-bar, for
supporting the body in a horizontal position;" while the fourth
claim was for the reenforcing plate and connected
cross-springs.
Appellee's contention that the connection of the crossed springs
of the third and fourth claims is a connection by means of the
reenforcing plate and its flanges, which, the specification says,
were intended to serve as bearing points for the ends of the
springs, described in the fourth claim as a separate element in
combination with the body supporting bar and the connected
cross-springs, requires no comment.
The new fifth claim omits the crossing connection altogether,
and covers matter recognized as old in the original patent, and
claims three and four, if broadly construed in connection with the
new matter introduced in the specification, render the central
connection nonessential, since it might be omitted if preferred.
There is no basis for the theory of inadvertence, accident, or
mistake, and the reissue cannot be sustained.
As to the original patent, it should be observed that if the
bolt passing through the sockets in that portion of the springs
centrally under the body, and coupling them together as shown were
omitted, the result would be the Timken spring, and it involved no
invention on the part of Timken to dispense with that connecting
link, thus leaving the springs practically identical. It is true
that the Tilton patent, both original and reissue, showed the light
ends of the springs secured to the side-bars by links or swinging
shackles, while the shackles were rigid in the Timken; but both
these shackles were well known, and complainant cannot contend that
the difference is material.
In short, the Tilton patent relates to a crossing spring with a
pivot bolt at the intersection. The Timken spring is the Tilton
spring with the pivot bolt omitted, but in the defendants' spring,
the two sections do not cross each other, and cannot have a pivot
bolt at the intersection.
Many different styles of cross-springs appear in the record,
representing springs of all kinds and shapes -- springs placed
Page 155 U. S. 149
longitudinally and transversely of the vehicle; springs with
different fastenings binding them together at the crossing point;
single sweep and double sweep springs; springs of wood and of
steel; cross-springs of rigid metal; spring bars with semi-elliptic
double sweep springs, etc. It is not disputed that the side-bar
buggy or wagon, known as the "Brewster Side-Bar Vehicle," came into
general use in 1873, and was made under a patent granted to Wood,
May 27, 1873 (No. 139,348), reissued August 18, 1874 (No. 6,018).
The Wood invention consisted in altering a side-bar buggy having
downward, transverse springs over the axle, in which the ends of
the side-bars rest on the ends of the springs, by putting in
upwardly curved springs transversely between the side-bars and the
body of the buggy, the claim being:
"A frame, consisting of the longitudinal side-bars, FF,
downwardly bowed end springs, EE, and upwardly bowed metal springs,
GG, constructed, arranged, and applied as and for the purpose
described."
In the reissue, the half springs in reverse were not a part of
the combination, and the claim was, "The semi-elliptic springs, GG,
interposed between the side-bars, FF, and the wagon body, all
combined substantially as specified." The original and reissue were
both held invalid by Judge Wallace in
Brewster v. Shuler,
37 F. 785. Reference was there made to the semi-elliptic,
scroll-ended springs which had previously been interposed between
the side-bars and the body of a buggy belonging to a well known
class used in carriages, and sold by dealers as semi-elliptic
springs, as appeared in the patent to George Groot of July 13, 1869
(one of the patents in evidence here), for an improvement in
carriage springs, which patent relates to the fastening of
semi-elliptic springs transversely under the body of the carriage
to side springs by means of saddle clips; and, there being nothing
in the Wood patent to indicate that a semi-elliptic spring of a
special form was an element in the claim, it was held that the
claim specified one of any well known form adapted to be interposed
between the side-bars and the wagon body, and that therefore the
patent was void for prior public use of semi-elliptic, scroll-ended
springs, though the drawings showed springs without scroll
ends.
Page 155 U. S. 150
The Steward patent of October 25, 1870, describes a
semi-elliptic spring whose ends are attached to the axle by means
of two diagonal spring braces which pass from the points of
attachment to the semi-elliptic spring diagonally past each other
to points near the journals of the axle, there to be secured by
means of a sleeve and set screw, or in some other suitable manner.
The heavy ends are attached to the gear and the light ends to the
semi-elliptic spring or spring bar on which the vehicle rests, but
obviously these springs could be interchangeably used for the
springs shown in the Timken patent, and it would require no
invention to attach them. There was no novelty in the means of
accomplishing the result.
In Kenan's patent of September 13, 1870, No. 107,386, we find
crossing springs coupled at the crossing point by solid balls or
blocks of India rubber. In Labaw's, No. 34,549, February 25, 1862,
and Hubbard's, No. 12,890, May 15, 1855, the connection is effected
by a pivot bolt. In Cooper's patent, No. 200,435, February 19,
1878, each spring is formed of two
sections, lying side by side, the inner end or heel of each
section being secured to the wagon body, but a little beyond its
center, while the outer ends are secured to the side-bars.
Catterson's English patent, No. 2,642, May 15, 1854, shows
cross-springs formed of two sections, lying side by side, pointing
in opposite directions, provided at their ends with thin, flexible,
curved portions, and there shackled.
The earliest patent in the record is the Manton English patent,
No. 4,092, dated July 18, 1817. This patent shows a rigid gear
mounted on cross-springs having their heavy ends "attached to the
under side of the body at opposite sides, then crossing each other,
and connected to the side-bar on opposite sides."
The specification states:
"My improvement in the application of springs to wheel carriages
consists in placing the springs which are to support the body of
the carriage in a transverse or cross position, so that the length
of the springs will be in a direction from side to side of the
carriage, as represented by the drawings hereunto annexed, and that
each spring shall be
Page 155 U. S. 151
fixed to the body or suspended part of the carriage on one side
thereof by one end of the said spring, which spring shall extend
crossways beneath the body of the carriage, and be attached to the
frame of the carriage on the opposite side to that side on which
the other end of the same spring is fastened to the body of the
carriage. This is shown in Fig. 1, which is a view of part of a gig
body and the axletree, to show the application of the springs. A is
the axletree; BB, blocks fixed on the axletree to support the
shafts, which, with their cross-rail, CC, form a frame. Upon this
frame the body, DD, is placed.
ab is one of the springs,
and
cd the other. Both springs are bolted or otherwise
firmly fastened to the under side of the body, D at their thick
ends,
a and
c the other ends,
b and
d, of the springs, are received in shackles, loops, or
links, which are suspended from the shafts or frame, and allow the
ends,
b and
d, of the springs some play. The same
figure also shows clearly how the springs cross each other, but a
sufficient interval must be left between the two springs, that they
will not touch or rub against each other where they cross. The
figure is taken at the hind part of the gig, and similar
cross-springs may be applied at the fore part. The springs are
suspended by the shackles, loops, or braces in order that the ends
of the springs may expand and contract -- that is, advance to and
recede from each other -- when the body rises and falls by jolts
and irregular motions. . . . The thick ends,
a and
c, of the springs, are fastened to a bar, GG, on the ends
of which bar irons, H, are fastened, and they go beneath the body,
DD, of the carriage, and are firmly fastened thereto, so as to fix
the bar, G, firmly to the body. . . . In some cases, the springs
may be fixed immediately to the body of the carriage, . . . and
then, if there is sufficient substance of wood in the body or boot
or wherever the springs are to be fastened, there will be no
necessity for the bar, G, but be it observed that the particular
manner of attaching and affixing the springs in their places may be
left to the discretion of the workman, who must adapt the springs,
in respect to their dimensions, weight, strength, and mode of
attachment, to their places, according to the particular kind of
carriage to which they are
Page 155 U. S. 152
to be applied, for I confine my improvement in the application
of springs to wheel carriages to the placing of such springs in a
transverse direction when one end of each spring is attached to the
body of the carriage on one side (for instance, the left-hand side)
and the other end of the same spring is attached by a shackle to
the carriage or frame on the opposite side (for instance, on the
right-hand side), the manner of which has been hereinbefore
explained. In all cases, the springs, being fixed fast at one end,
must be suspended by a shackle at the other end to allow them play
to expand or contract."
Figure 1, omitting the frame formed by the axletree, the shaft
supports, and the cross-rail, is as follows:
image:b
The Manton specification covers a larger field than that of
Timken, but the two devices are strikingly similar.
Passing to the question of prior use, the springs manufactured
by Priest at Detroit, Michigan, show such anticipation of the
alleged invention in the three patents in suit as seems to us quite
decisive. The learned circuit judge, however, rejected the
testimony of Priest as wholly unreliable, but, in our view, that
testimony was so fully corroborated by other witnesses and
documentary evidence that we are constrained to arrive at a
different conclusion, whatever might be said of it, standing
alone.
The first of the Priest springs is known as the "Meisner
Spring." In 1872 or 1873, Priest manufactured a buggy for Dr.
Meisner which had a body coupled to the side-bars by double sweep,
sectional cross-springs, rigidly secured to the buggy bottom at
opposite sides by bolts passing through their thick ends, then
curved downwardly from the body, and up again in the direction of
the side-bars, to which they were coupled by swinging shackles or
links.
Page 155 U. S. 153
The evidence of Priest and of one Rolfe, then a dealer in
carriages, was to the effect that in 1874 Priest built a side-bar
buggy on the order of Rolfe, who had contracted with C. W. Prescott
to furnish a Brewster buggy for Lady Prescott, but, during its
construction, Brewster's agent demanded a royalty, whereupon Priest
used the Meisner spring, substituting the Brewster rigid shackle
for the loose link.
Rolfe testified that the buggy was made in September or October,
and was painted prior to December 1, 1874, and he produced the bill
for the painting, dated December 31 of that year; also, his invoice
book, showing the buggy on hand January 1, 1875, as well as entries
afterwards of a buggy sold Sir George Prescott and of several other
buggies with Priest springs; also bills of lading, dated March 25,
1875, from the Erie and North Shore Line, showing the consignment
of the buggy to Lady Prescott, Strand Park, Herne Bay, Kent,
England -- one for the shipment from Detroit to New York, and
another for the transportation from New York to London, April 10th,
by the steamer C. F. French; also, letter of C. W. Prescott, dated
June 10, 1875, from Isenhurst, Hawkhurst, Sussex, England, showing
that the buggy had arrived, and ordering another for Sir George
Prescott, and another letter of C. W. Prescott, without date,
purporting to have been written from Lawrence, Kansas, with
reference to the second buggy. The testimony of Priest was
sustained not only by that of Rolfe, but of Rand, who packed and
superintended the shipment of the buggy to England. Rolfe's invoice
book showed the buggy sold to Sir George Prescott, August 13, 1875,
and also a Priest buggy to Dr. Drake on October 23, 1875. That the
first Prescott buggy was made and shipped as contended is
satisfactorily made out, but the real question is as to the
character of the springs upon it, and in respect of that Priest is
corroborated by several witnesses.
Among the exhibits which Mr. Timken concedes, in his evidence,
contain his invention, or are nearly the same as his springs, are
the Matlock or Kierolf springs and the Kunkle Brothers' springs.
The Kunkle springs were manufactured by one Ruple and sold to
Kunkle Brothers in 1876 or the
Page 155 U. S. 154
spring of 1877, and the evidence tends to show that these
springs were invented by Ruple in the latter part of 1875. He
applied for a patent shortly after the allowance of the Timken
patent, and his application was rejected, but the specification and
drawing of this application are given in the record, and show
clearly the invention claimed in this suit. The Kierolf springs
were made during the summer or spring of 1877. Matlock identifies
similar springs as made in 1877. We think counsel for appellants
justified in saying that these and other springs exhibited were
made in view of the reissued Wood patent embodied in the Brewster
wagon. What was known as "Double-Sweep Concord Springs" were long
enough to extend from the rear axle to the head block, and Brewster
shortened these springs, and extended them across from side-bar to
side-bar. Subsequent inventors took these same Concord springs,
and, instead of shortening them, cut them in two in the middle, and
crossed them past each other, extending from the middle or one side
of the buggy body to the cross-bar on the opposite side.
Timken made his application October 27, 1877, and the evidence
on his behalf as to when he made his invention, which we have
carefully examined, fails to show that it was earlier than the
other devices to which we have referred.
Appellee's argument seems to be that the Timken patent should be
so construed as to cover a double sweep sectional spring having the
attaching ends connected to the bottom of the buggy or cross sills
at any point between the side and the center, crossing the center,
bending downwardly for a distance, and then upwardly to be attached
to the side-bar; having a thick end for attachment to the buggy
bottom and a thin end for attachment to the side-bar shackle, the
curve being such as to allow the body to move up and down without
expanding the side-bar; but we do not understand this description
to be within the terms of the patent, according to which the Timken
invention consisted in the use of sectional springs arranged in
pairs, side by side, and crossing each other, to couple the body to
the gear. Now that sectional springs can be used for coupling the
body to the gear of the vehicle, that rigidity
Page 155 U. S. 155
of spring can be obtained by making the connections rigid;, that
the body could be hung either high or low by the proper sweep of
the spring, that the form and sweep of the springs, and various
methods of using them as couplings between the gear and body, were
well known the patents, exhibits, and proofs make exceedingly
clear, and we should say that nothing but mechanical skill was
required to so adapt these well known springs as to attain the
desired objects expressed in complainant's patent. And while the
patented article may have been popular and met with large sales,
that fact is not important when the alleged invention is without
patentable novelty.
Duer v. Lock Company, 149 U.
S. 216.
If, however, such a construction could be put on the Timken
patent as would save it from being held invalid for anticipation or
for want of invention, that construction would certainly exclude
appellants' structure. The differences between them are well and
accurately given by appellants' expert. Timken's sections have
their heels attached at the sides of the wagon bed, cross the
entire bottom to reach the opposite side-bar, cross each other like
the letter X, and have their heels fastened independently and far
apart, below the wagon bed by bolts passing through perforations in
the springs, the flexible portions of the sections comprising the
entire distance between the shackle bar and the first attaching
bolt. In appellants' structure, the heels of the sections attach at
about the center of the wagon bed, and do not cross the entire
bottom to reach the opposite side-bar; the sections do not cross
each other; the heels are attached closely contiguous to each other
by a rigid clip, secured by bolts and clips, the flexion of the
section being limited to a length extending from the shackle end of
the section to a point some distance nearer the shackle end than
the bolt perforation through the section.
As to the Saladee patent, in view of the state of the art as
shown by the exhibits, all made more than two years prior to the
application for this patent, which was February 7, 1881, and the
fact that the proof shows that the defendants' springs are made in
accordance with the Stickle patent, and that Stickle made his
invention and reduced it to practice prior to
Page 155 U. S. 156
the application for the Saladee patent, we need spend no time
upon it. Moreover, the Cooper patent No. 200,435 clearly
anticipated Saladee's invention.
The decree is reversed and the cause remanded with a
direction to dismiss the bill.