Mr. Justice GRIER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill charges the defendants with infringing two several patents granted to complainant, for improvements in the machine known as McCormick’s Reaper. One of these patents bears date the 31st of January, 1845; the other on the 24th of May, 1853, being the, reissue of a previous one, dated 23d of October, 1847. The -defendants are charged with infringing the fourth and fifth claims of the patent of 1845, and the second' claim of the reissued patent of 1853.
I. The first infringement charged is that of the divider, or that part of the reaping machine which is defined “as an ar[404]*404rangement, or apparatus, for separating the grain to be cut from that which is to be left standing.”
The claim is as follows: “4th. I claim the combination of the bow L and the dividing-iron M, for separating.the wheat in the way described.”
The description referred to is as follows:
“The divider K is an extension of the frame on the left side of the platform, say three feet before the blade, for the purpose and so constructed’as to effect a separation of the wheat to be, cut from that to be left standing, and tjiat whether tangled or not.. E is a piece of scantling, say three feet long, and three inches square, made fast to a' projection of the platform by two screw-bolts. To the- point of this, piece, .at K, is made, fast by a screw or bolt a bów L of tough wood, the other end of which is made fast in the. hinder part of the platform, at R, and it is- so bent as to be about two and a half .feet high'at the (left) reel-post, and about nine inches out from it, with a. regular curve. ' The dividing-iron M is an iron rod of a-peculiar shape, made fast to. the point of the same piece. E, a'n.d by the same screw-bolt that holds the bpw.L. From this bolt this iron rises towards the reel S, at amangle of say-30°, until it reaches it, then it is bent so as to pass under the reel as far back as the blade, and to fit the curve of it (the reel.) From the.bolt in the point aforesaid, the other end of this-iron extends* say nine inches, along the inside of the piece E, where it is held by. another screw-bolt. M, and where it has a groove (or slot) in it to admit the other ends being raised or lowered (turning on the point screw K as a pivot.) to suit the height of the reel. By means of the bow to bear off' the standing wheat, and the iron to throw the wheat to be cut within the powers of the reel, the required separation is made complete.”
, The answer denies that the arrangement of the divider used by defendants for separating the grain to be. Cut from that to be left standing is the same in construction or mode of operation as that claimed by complainant, or a colorable evasion of said claim, and avers that it is a different and distinct arrangement, invented by J. H. Manny, after several years’ experiments.
It would be a difficult task to make, intelligible to the uninitiated the construction of a very, complex machine, without the aid of. models or diagrams. But, for the purposes of the case, the divider, although a component part of the great complex maphine; called the reaper* maybe considered by itself as a machine, or combination of devices) attached to the reaper to perform certain functions necessary to complete the whole operation. In order to ascertain whether the divider used by defend[405]*405ants infringes that of the complainant,' we must first inquire whether' McCormick was the first to invent the machine called á divider, performing the functions required, or has merely improved-a known. machine hy some peculiar combination of mechanical devices which perform the same functions in a better manner.
If he be the original inventor of the device or machine called' the divider, he will have a right to treat as infringers all who make dividers operating on the same principle, and performing the same functions by analogous means or equivalent combinations, even though the infringing machine may be an improvement of the original, and patentable as such. But if the invention claimed be itself but an improvement on a known machine by á mere change of form or combination of parts, the patentee cannot treat another as an infringer who has improved the original machine by use of a different form or combination performing the same functions. The inventor of the first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents to suppress all other improvements which are • not mere colorable invasions of the first.
That portion of a reaping machine called the divider or separator may be described as a pointed, wedge-formed instrument, which is attached by its, butt at that extremity of the cutting apparatus which runs in the grain, in such manner that its point projects in advance of the- cutting apparatus, and enters the standing grain. Its functions, where the grain stands erect, are to divide it into two portions, one of which is borne inwards' by the inner side of the wedge-formed implement within the range of the cutting apparatus and of the reel, in case the machine' is fitted with a reel; the other portion of the grain is borne outwards by the outer side of the divider, so as to be passed by that portion of the machine which lies behind the cutting apparatus. When grain is inclined outwards, the function of the divider is not only merely to divide the grain into portions, but also to' raise .up-the inclined stalks of the grain, below which, the divider passes. When the grain inclines inwards, the function of the divider is not only to divide the mass, but also to raise up the inclined stalks of grain beneath which the divider passes, and to bear them outwards without the range of the reel, if the machine has a reel, and of the cutting apparatus., When grain, in addition to being inclined, is also entangled, the divider not only separates and raises the stalks, but also tends to disentangle them. The lower face of a divider also performs the function of a shoe or, runner, to prevent the cutting apparatus from digging into the earth, when, by any accidental movement of the machine, it would [406]*406otherwise do so. The divider also performs the function' of limiting or regulating the width of the swath, by raising up and turning inwards those stalks of grain which, from their inclination outwards, would otherwise escape the action of the cutter; and by raising up and turning outwards those stalks of grain which, from their inclination inwards, would otherwise be within the range of the cutter: All dividers'perform these functions in a greater or less degreé. The English-patent of Dobbs, in 1814, had dividers of wood or metal. The outer diverging-rod rose as it extended back, and diverged laterally from the point, to-raise the stalks of grain inclining inwards, and to turn them off from the other parts of the machine. The • patent of Charles Phillips of 1841 had a divider, shaped like a wedge, performing the same function, turning the grain aside .on both sides' of the machine, and-raising it up. Ambler’s machine had a triangular divider performing the same functions, as also the machines of Hussey, Schnébly, and that of McCormick, patented in 1834 which is now public property. The/present claim is for the combination of this bow with a dividing .iron of a certain form, and for nothing more. . This dividing iron is but a new form Or substitute for that side of the triangle or wedge which in other machines performed the function of separating the inside grain, and raising it to the cutters. _
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice GRIER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill charges the defendants with infringing two several patents granted to complainant, for improvements in the machine known as McCormick’s Reaper. One of these patents bears date the 31st of January, 1845; the other on the 24th of May, 1853, being the, reissue of a previous one, dated 23d of October, 1847. The -defendants are charged with infringing the fourth and fifth claims of the patent of 1845, and the second' claim of the reissued patent of 1853.
I. The first infringement charged is that of the divider, or that part of the reaping machine which is defined “as an ar[404]*404rangement, or apparatus, for separating the grain to be cut from that which is to be left standing.”
The claim is as follows: “4th. I claim the combination of the bow L and the dividing-iron M, for separating.the wheat in the way described.”
The description referred to is as follows:
“The divider K is an extension of the frame on the left side of the platform, say three feet before the blade, for the purpose and so constructed’as to effect a separation of the wheat to be, cut from that to be left standing, and tjiat whether tangled or not.. E is a piece of scantling, say three feet long, and three inches square, made fast to a' projection of the platform by two screw-bolts. To the- point of this, piece, .at K, is made, fast by a screw or bolt a bów L of tough wood, the other end of which is made fast in the. hinder part of the platform, at R, and it is- so bent as to be about two and a half .feet high'at the (left) reel-post, and about nine inches out from it, with a. regular curve. ' The dividing-iron M is an iron rod of a-peculiar shape, made fast to. the point of the same piece. E, a'n.d by the same screw-bolt that holds the bpw.L. From this bolt this iron rises towards the reel S, at amangle of say-30°, until it reaches it, then it is bent so as to pass under the reel as far back as the blade, and to fit the curve of it (the reel.) From the.bolt in the point aforesaid, the other end of this-iron extends* say nine inches, along the inside of the piece E, where it is held by. another screw-bolt. M, and where it has a groove (or slot) in it to admit the other ends being raised or lowered (turning on the point screw K as a pivot.) to suit the height of the reel. By means of the bow to bear off' the standing wheat, and the iron to throw the wheat to be cut within the powers of the reel, the required separation is made complete.”
, The answer denies that the arrangement of the divider used by defendants for separating the grain to be. Cut from that to be left standing is the same in construction or mode of operation as that claimed by complainant, or a colorable evasion of said claim, and avers that it is a different and distinct arrangement, invented by J. H. Manny, after several years’ experiments.
It would be a difficult task to make, intelligible to the uninitiated the construction of a very, complex machine, without the aid of. models or diagrams. But, for the purposes of the case, the divider, although a component part of the great complex maphine; called the reaper* maybe considered by itself as a machine, or combination of devices) attached to the reaper to perform certain functions necessary to complete the whole operation. In order to ascertain whether the divider used by defend[405]*405ants infringes that of the complainant,' we must first inquire whether' McCormick was the first to invent the machine called á divider, performing the functions required, or has merely improved-a known. machine hy some peculiar combination of mechanical devices which perform the same functions in a better manner.
If he be the original inventor of the device or machine called' the divider, he will have a right to treat as infringers all who make dividers operating on the same principle, and performing the same functions by analogous means or equivalent combinations, even though the infringing machine may be an improvement of the original, and patentable as such. But if the invention claimed be itself but an improvement on a known machine by á mere change of form or combination of parts, the patentee cannot treat another as an infringer who has improved the original machine by use of a different form or combination performing the same functions. The inventor of the first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents to suppress all other improvements which are • not mere colorable invasions of the first.
That portion of a reaping machine called the divider or separator may be described as a pointed, wedge-formed instrument, which is attached by its, butt at that extremity of the cutting apparatus which runs in the grain, in such manner that its point projects in advance of the- cutting apparatus, and enters the standing grain. Its functions, where the grain stands erect, are to divide it into two portions, one of which is borne inwards' by the inner side of the wedge-formed implement within the range of the cutting apparatus and of the reel, in case the machine' is fitted with a reel; the other portion of the grain is borne outwards by the outer side of the divider, so as to be passed by that portion of the machine which lies behind the cutting apparatus. When grain is inclined outwards, the function of the divider is not only merely to divide the grain into portions, but also to' raise .up-the inclined stalks of the grain, below which, the divider passes. When the grain inclines inwards, the function of the divider is not only to divide the mass, but also to raise up the inclined stalks of grain beneath which the divider passes, and to bear them outwards without the range of the reel, if the machine has a reel, and of the cutting apparatus., When grain, in addition to being inclined, is also entangled, the divider not only separates and raises the stalks, but also tends to disentangle them. The lower face of a divider also performs the function of a shoe or, runner, to prevent the cutting apparatus from digging into the earth, when, by any accidental movement of the machine, it would [406]*406otherwise do so. The divider also performs the function' of limiting or regulating the width of the swath, by raising up and turning inwards those stalks of grain which, from their inclination outwards, would otherwise escape the action of the cutter; and by raising up and turning outwards those stalks of grain which, from their inclination inwards, would otherwise be within the range of the cutter: All dividers'perform these functions in a greater or less degreé. The English-patent of Dobbs, in 1814, had dividers of wood or metal. The outer diverging-rod rose as it extended back, and diverged laterally from the point, to-raise the stalks of grain inclining inwards, and to turn them off from the other parts of the machine. The • patent of Charles Phillips of 1841 had a divider, shaped like a wedge, performing the same function, turning the grain aside .on both sides' of the machine, and-raising it up. Ambler’s machine had a triangular divider performing the same functions, as also the machines of Hussey, Schnébly, and that of McCormick, patented in 1834 which is now public property. The/present claim is for the combination of this bow with a dividing .iron of a certain form, and for nothing more. . This dividing iron is but a new form Or substitute for that side of the triangle or wedge which in other machines performed the function of separating the inside grain, and raising it to the cutters. _
_ It is described in..the patent as having these peculiarities to distinguish it from those that preceded it.
1. It rises at an angle of about thirty degrees till it reaches the reel.
2. It is curved under the reel.
3. It is made adjustable by-means of a slot, so' as to suit the different heights of the reel.
Its function is to raise and'support the grain along the inner edge of the divider, at the maximum elevation consistent with the employment of the reel. As a form or combination of devices it is new, and no doubt an improvement, and therefore the proper subject of a patent. But as a claim for a combination of mechanical devices or parts, it is not infringed by one who uses a part of the combination. Nor can it challenge other improvements of the same machine, different in form or combination, as -infringements, because théy perform the same functions as well or better by palling them equivalents'. ' The machine constructed under defendants’ patent has a wooden projection, somewhat in the form of a wedge, extended beyond the cutting-sickles some three feet, and which, from the point in front, rises as it approaches the cutting apparatus, with a small curve (not approaching to an angle of thirty degrees) so [407]*407as to raise the leaning grain. It has no dividing-iron, nor substitute or equivalent possessing the peculiar qualities of that instrument.' It more resembles the wedges in use before McCormick’s patent of 1845. As an improvement on former machines, it has some peculiarities of form and construction, but it does not adopt the combination of complainant’s- patent. ' It is a distinct improvement, probably inferior to McCormick’s, but certainly no infringement of his claim.
H. The fifth claim of complainant’s patent of 1845, which the bill charges the defendants with infringing, is as follows:
“5. I claim setting the lower end of the reel-post R behind the blade, curving it at R, and leaning it forward at top, thereby favoring the cutting, and enabling me to brace it at top by the front brace S, as described, which I claim in combination with the posh”
In the reaping machine of McCormick’s original patent of 1834, he had placed the reel-post in front of the cutters. This position of the post interfered with the action of the reel in drawing the grain to the cutters, especially in gathering tangled •grain. In order to remedy this defect of his own machine, he set the post farther.back, and braced it as described.
Defendant does not support his reel by posts, as wa’s done by McCormick. He uses the horizontal reel-bearer connected by a frame with the hinder part of the machine. This device for supporting the reel was invented and used many years' before McCormick’s first patent of1834. It had no reel-post situated as in his patent, and encountered none of the evils- remedied by the change in its position. This attempt to treat the earlier and better device used by defendant as an infringement of a later device to obviate a difficulty unknown to the first, is an application of the doctrine of equivalents which needs no further comment/
III. The bill charges defendants with infringing the second claim of the reissued patent of 1853. This claim is as follows:
“ 2. And I also claim the combination of the reel for gathering the grain to the cutting apparatus, and depositing it on the platform, with the seat or position for the raker arranged and located as described, or the equivalent thereof, to enable the raker .to rake the grain from the platform, and deliver and lay it on the ground at the side of the machine as described.”
If this claim be construed to include all machines which have a reel and a raker’s seat, it is void, for want of novelty. Hite, Woodward, Randall, and Schnebly, had invented and publicly used reaping machines which had reels, and a place for the raker on the machine. But the true construction of this claim, and the only one which will support iis .validity, is to treat it [408]*408as a claim for a combination of the reel with a seat “arranged and located' as described.” And such was the construction given to it by the defendant himself, when the Commissioner had refused to grant him a patent claiming the mere combination of a reel and a raker’s seat, “because such a-combination •was not patentable, the functions of each device having no necessary connection with the other.”
This arrangement for the location of a raker’s seat was made “by placing the gearing and crank forward of the driving-wheel, and thus carrying the driving-wheel further back than heretofore, and sufficiently so to balance the rear part of the -frame and,the raker thereon.”
By this device he obtained a plaee 'for the raker over the finger-bar, just back of the driving-wheel, and at the end of the reel, where he could have free access to the grain, and rake it off the machine at right angles to the swath. It was by limiting his "claim to this arrangement, location, and combination, that the complainant obtained his patent; and without this construction of it, the. claim is neither patentable nor original.
The arrangement, combination, and’location of the raker’s seat, by defendants, has been patented to Manny, as an independent contrivance, and distinct invention. The place for the raker is obtained by a change in the shape of the platform, different from'any before employed. It differs from, the complainant’s device.in principle as well as in form and combination. i The raker’s seat is- on a different part of the machine, where he may stand without destroying the balance of the machine, or tilting it up. It requires no modification of the reel. It requires no such combination or modification of parts of the machine in order to find-a place, for the raker, which is an 'essential part of complainant’s claim.
- It is substantially different, both in form and in combination, from that claimed by the complainant, and is consequently no infringement of his patent. ■ .
Concurring, as wé do, in the opinion and decision of the court •below on these several points, the decree-is affirmed with costs.