Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania/Smith v. Uhrich

Smith v. Uhrich

94 F. 865, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3108
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 26, 1899
DocketNo. 22
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 F. 865 (Smith v. Uhrich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Uhrich, 94 F. 865, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3108 (circtedpa 1899).

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit upon letters patent No. 522,435, dated July 8, 1894, granted to William E. Smith, for im[866]*866provements in spring-tooth harrows. The claims • alleged to have been infringed are as follows: >

“(1) The combination, of the hub and spring tooth mounted therein, of the cylinder mounted in the hub, and means for pressing the cylinder onto the tooth to secure it in position, substantially as described. (2) The combination with the hub, having ribs forming a recess for the reception of the tooth, and having an opening therethrough of a cylinder fitting the opening loosely, and bearing on the tooth, and means for pressing the cylinder in position, substantially as> described.”

Tbe presumption of its validity which arises from the grant of this patent has not been overcome. The invention to which it relates is, however, neither a primary nor a great one. It follows that it must be sustained, but that the monopoly which it creates is not to be expanded by interpretation. Yet, although its claims are to be confined to the specific combinations which they describe, their scope should not be so restricted as to admit of the avoidance of infringement by resort to merely colorable and evasive variations; and, in my opinion, the differences between the combination of the two claims in suit and that of the defendant amount to nothing more. This, in substance, has been testified to by the complainants’ expert, upon grounds which I think entirely satisfactory; and the correctness of his conclusions has been impugned but by two witnesses, neither of whom can be said to be disinterested, and one of whom, at least, does not appear to be free from bias. The complainants’ expert to whom I have referred, produced a drawing, prepared by himself, illustrating the constructions in- controversy, upon which he had marked the corresponding features and component parts of the respective devices, with the same reference letters. The following is a reproduction of that drawing.

In explanation of this drawing the witness testified as follows:

“It will be noted that each of tbe devices illustrated in tbe blue print embodies tbe bub or yoke, B, wbicb may be made of cast metal or otherwise, but it is shown therein that it is cast in one piece; and each is provided with tbe opening, Bi, and tbe underside is provided with lugs, bbi, projecting inwardly, and forming tbe seat for tbe shank of tbe tooth, T. Bach of said structures has also tbe opening, B2, through tbe bottom, between tbe ribs, and to the opening Bi. And the said ribs are so arranged that when the tooth is in position it will extend slightly into tbe opening Bi. Through the opening Bi passes a cylinder or piece of metal tubing, which is termed tbe connector, O, in the specification of tbe patent. Said connector is employed to tie together the longitudinal bars of the frame, by the aid of a bolt passing through the longitudinal bars and through said connector. Therefore the said connector performs the same function and is the equivalent of the crossbar of an ordinary harrow frame. ■ I furthermore observe, in said blue print, that in each instance tbe aforesaid tube or connector is pressed down on tbe underlying tooth shank so as to effectually clamp it on the ribs, bbi, by the setscrew, P, connected to the hub or yoke, B, in substantially tbe same manner.”

Upon the whole evidence, I am satisfied of the substantial identity of the parts as thus indicated. In appearance, of course, the two devices are riot precisely alike; but this, in itself, is immaterial. Perhaps the most striking differences are that in the defendant’s arrangement the setscrew is longer than in that of the patent, and extends through a hole in the cylinder, and presses upon its inner surface, and that the ribs are in the one device transverse, while in the

[867]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spirella Co. v. Nubone Corset Co.
180 F. 470 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 F. 865, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-uhrich-circtedpa-1899.