The Corn-Planter Patent
This text of 90 U.S. 181 (The Corn-Planter Patent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Mr. Justice BRADLEY
delivered the opinion of the court.
A proper decision of the questions in these causes renders it necessary, in the first place, to ascertain, as near as may be, the actual date of Brown’s alleged invention or inventions, such as and whatever they are. His original application for a patent was sworn to on the 27th of September, 1852. But it appears from his own testimony, which does not seem to be discredited, but rather corroborated by others, that he was making experiments in 1850, on a ma[204]*204chine which formed the nucleus of his completed invention. He further says that in January or February, 1851, he made a machine which he describes as follows:
“ It had two runners and two wheels, two cross-bars and nose-pieces, two braces, dropper’s seat, and a tongue. The wheels were hung through the seed-boxes by arms. There were arms running back from the seed-boxes, which the wheels run in, coupled through the seed-boxes with a bolt. I had a loop running down each side of the wheel that went on to the axles on the wheels, and worked a couple of short levers fastened on this loop running forward under the forepart of the machine, and running back far enough to put a cross-piece on behind. I am a poor hand at describing it. The seed-slide passed through the hoppers, running from one to the other, and the lever operated it with the hand, with a person located on the machine crosswise, so that he could see the marks plain on the ground.”
Further evidence was given by him descriptive of the mar chine, and showing its substantial identity with the machine as it stood when the patent was granted.
This, however, was only a model. But it had all the main characteristics of the perfected machine, except that the circular valves were not contained in it, the seed being dropped from the bottom of the hopper by the movement of a straight slide. He further testified that in 1852 he sent that model by his brother to Washington, and that it was very nearly the same as the model filed in the Patent Office, a copj’ of which was shown to the witness, and is an exhibit in the cause. He further states that in the same year he made, after the plan of the model, a machine of one-half the usual size, but large enough to work with, and that he planted three or four acres of corn with it in JVhiy, 1851. He says it worked well. In September of the same year, after harvest, he invited several persons to come and see it operate, giving their names. Several of these witnesses were called and fully corroborated his testimonj^. Early in 1852 he commenced constructing ten machines, but completed but one of them that spring. With this one, and the half-sized machine before mentioned, he planted over twenty [205]*205acres of corn, namely, sixteen for himself and eight for Allen Brown. At this time, he says, he introduced into these machines the circular valves, or dropping plates, in place of the slides, thus completing the machine as it stood when he applied for his patent and made the model now before us, which was during the same season. The following spring, 1858, before corn-planting time, he had completed a dozen machines containing all his improvements, and sold them to various persons. Some of them, he says, planted as much as three hundred acres of corn. These machines, he says, contain the high seat and flipper-valve, which were the subject of the patent dated May 8th, 1855.
The appellees have endeavored (but we think unsuccessfully) to discredit the statements and testimony of Brown, especially as to the existence of rollers for covering the seed in the model and small-sized machine made in the early part of 1851. He is corroborated on this point by his nephew, V. R. Brown, and others; and nothing but negative testimony is adduced to the contrary.
We think it clear that his machine (except the seat and the flipper-valve) was substantially invented in the beginning of 1851, and that in April or May of that year he had constructed and used a small working corn-planter, containing all the material parts of his machine as it was when patented, except the circular valve in the hopper, which was added as an improvement on the straight slide in the spring of 1852.
We will next proceed to inquire what machines belonging to the same general class had been invented prior to this period, in order to show the state of the art at that time.
It cannot be seriously contended that Cooke’s drill, and other machines of the kind, described in the Farmer’s Encyclopedia, bear any resemblance to the specific features of Brown’s corn-planter. The furrows are made by coulters fixed in beams, and the grain is covered by harrows following the drills. The latter are hollow tubes which are supplied with the seed grain by a revolving cylinder having little cups, or cavities, in its surface, which become filled as they revolve in the bottom of the hopper.
[206]*206It is hardly necessary to consume time in reference to the alleged invention of Joab Moftatt, in or about the year 1884, models of which, made from the supposed recollection of witnesses, have been presented to the court. Moftatt himself was placed on the stand, and swears that he has no recollection of having ever invented such a machine. And it is a little singular, if he did inveut such a perfect machine as the models represent, approaching so closely in every particular to Brown’s corn-planter, that it should have gone into total disuse and oblivion. The general aspect of the evidence relating to this supposed machine, and some remarkable individual features which it exhibits, are sufficient to justify us in throwing.it entirely out of the case.
An English patent, obtained by one Hornsby in 1840, was introduced; but the mechanism described therein has very slight resemblance to the corn-planter. It consists of a hollow wheel, with angular compartments and doors in the circumference to receive seed and manure from a hopper, aud deposit them on the ground by the revolution of the wheel. This wheel is situated in rear of a coulter running in the ground, and does not touch the ground itself, but is supported on the frame of the machine, which in turn is supported by large driving wheels on the outside of the frame. The coulter and deposit wheel are located in the inside of the frame. The inventor, however, observes that more than one coulter aud deposit wheel may be used. No method is described for covering the seed or pressing it into the ground. The.side view of the coulter exhibited in the drawing bears some resemblance to the runner in Brown’s machine; but we have no other description of it, or of the manner of its operation.
Thomas’s cottonseed-planter, patented in 1841, is next adduced.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice BRADLEY
delivered the opinion of the court.
A proper decision of the questions in these causes renders it necessary, in the first place, to ascertain, as near as may be, the actual date of Brown’s alleged invention or inventions, such as and whatever they are. His original application for a patent was sworn to on the 27th of September, 1852. But it appears from his own testimony, which does not seem to be discredited, but rather corroborated by others, that he was making experiments in 1850, on a ma[204]*204chine which formed the nucleus of his completed invention. He further says that in January or February, 1851, he made a machine which he describes as follows:
“ It had two runners and two wheels, two cross-bars and nose-pieces, two braces, dropper’s seat, and a tongue. The wheels were hung through the seed-boxes by arms. There were arms running back from the seed-boxes, which the wheels run in, coupled through the seed-boxes with a bolt. I had a loop running down each side of the wheel that went on to the axles on the wheels, and worked a couple of short levers fastened on this loop running forward under the forepart of the machine, and running back far enough to put a cross-piece on behind. I am a poor hand at describing it. The seed-slide passed through the hoppers, running from one to the other, and the lever operated it with the hand, with a person located on the machine crosswise, so that he could see the marks plain on the ground.”
Further evidence was given by him descriptive of the mar chine, and showing its substantial identity with the machine as it stood when the patent was granted.
This, however, was only a model. But it had all the main characteristics of the perfected machine, except that the circular valves were not contained in it, the seed being dropped from the bottom of the hopper by the movement of a straight slide. He further testified that in 1852 he sent that model by his brother to Washington, and that it was very nearly the same as the model filed in the Patent Office, a copj’ of which was shown to the witness, and is an exhibit in the cause. He further states that in the same year he made, after the plan of the model, a machine of one-half the usual size, but large enough to work with, and that he planted three or four acres of corn with it in JVhiy, 1851. He says it worked well. In September of the same year, after harvest, he invited several persons to come and see it operate, giving their names. Several of these witnesses were called and fully corroborated his testimonj^. Early in 1852 he commenced constructing ten machines, but completed but one of them that spring. With this one, and the half-sized machine before mentioned, he planted over twenty [205]*205acres of corn, namely, sixteen for himself and eight for Allen Brown. At this time, he says, he introduced into these machines the circular valves, or dropping plates, in place of the slides, thus completing the machine as it stood when he applied for his patent and made the model now before us, which was during the same season. The following spring, 1858, before corn-planting time, he had completed a dozen machines containing all his improvements, and sold them to various persons. Some of them, he says, planted as much as three hundred acres of corn. These machines, he says, contain the high seat and flipper-valve, which were the subject of the patent dated May 8th, 1855.
The appellees have endeavored (but we think unsuccessfully) to discredit the statements and testimony of Brown, especially as to the existence of rollers for covering the seed in the model and small-sized machine made in the early part of 1851. He is corroborated on this point by his nephew, V. R. Brown, and others; and nothing but negative testimony is adduced to the contrary.
We think it clear that his machine (except the seat and the flipper-valve) was substantially invented in the beginning of 1851, and that in April or May of that year he had constructed and used a small working corn-planter, containing all the material parts of his machine as it was when patented, except the circular valve in the hopper, which was added as an improvement on the straight slide in the spring of 1852.
We will next proceed to inquire what machines belonging to the same general class had been invented prior to this period, in order to show the state of the art at that time.
It cannot be seriously contended that Cooke’s drill, and other machines of the kind, described in the Farmer’s Encyclopedia, bear any resemblance to the specific features of Brown’s corn-planter. The furrows are made by coulters fixed in beams, and the grain is covered by harrows following the drills. The latter are hollow tubes which are supplied with the seed grain by a revolving cylinder having little cups, or cavities, in its surface, which become filled as they revolve in the bottom of the hopper.
[206]*206It is hardly necessary to consume time in reference to the alleged invention of Joab Moftatt, in or about the year 1884, models of which, made from the supposed recollection of witnesses, have been presented to the court. Moftatt himself was placed on the stand, and swears that he has no recollection of having ever invented such a machine. And it is a little singular, if he did inveut such a perfect machine as the models represent, approaching so closely in every particular to Brown’s corn-planter, that it should have gone into total disuse and oblivion. The general aspect of the evidence relating to this supposed machine, and some remarkable individual features which it exhibits, are sufficient to justify us in throwing.it entirely out of the case.
An English patent, obtained by one Hornsby in 1840, was introduced; but the mechanism described therein has very slight resemblance to the corn-planter. It consists of a hollow wheel, with angular compartments and doors in the circumference to receive seed and manure from a hopper, aud deposit them on the ground by the revolution of the wheel. This wheel is situated in rear of a coulter running in the ground, and does not touch the ground itself, but is supported on the frame of the machine, which in turn is supported by large driving wheels on the outside of the frame. The coulter and deposit wheel are located in the inside of the frame. The inventor, however, observes that more than one coulter aud deposit wheel may be used. No method is described for covering the seed or pressing it into the ground. The.side view of the coulter exhibited in the drawing bears some resemblance to the runner in Brown’s machine; but we have no other description of it, or of the manner of its operation.
Thomas’s cottonseed-planter, patented in 1841, is next adduced.
The next machine in order of time is Henry Todd’s, of Oxford, New Hampshire, patented December 15th, 1843.
Hale was the only witness examined on the subject of this machine. He says he helped Todd make six of them, and that they were used, and worked satisfactorily, in or about 1844. This being all that is heard of this machine in the cause, it is probable that its use was discontinued, and that it shared the fate of a thousand other devices which approach the point of final perfection and success, but do not reach it. The differences between this machine and Brown’s are just those differences which rendered the latter a success, and a valuable acquisition to the agriculture of the country.
Earle’s planting plough, patented in 1848, may be dismissed even more summarily than Todd’s machine. It operated automatically in depositing the seed, and was not adapted to check-row planting; the furrow was opened by a plough furnished with a double mould-board; and the seeds were covered by means of scrapers attached to a diagonal position behind the seeding apparatus. It had but one frame, and the Seed was deposited by means of a drum, having cavities in its surface, revolving in the bottom of the hopper, and discharging the seed into a tube behind the plough.
Mumma’s patent for a seed-drill, granted in 1849, was also put in evidence; but it describes only a grain-drill, devised to secure a more equal distribution of seed in the drills or furrows in ascending or descending hills, &c. “To the hindpart of the frame a small trunk is jointed, with a long lever attached to it, by which the whole seeding apparatus is raised from the ground when it is transported from place to place.” This device of the truck or jack and lever for [209]*209prying up the machine when being turned or transferred from one place to another, bears some resemblance to Brown’s method of raising the front frame of his machine by the levers resting on the drums or wheels. The patent is probably introduced to show this resemblance. It is so slight, however, that it cau have no serious effect in the cause.
The machine of Remy & Kelly comes next.
The appellees contend that this was an anticipation of several material parts of Brown’s machine. But it is obvious that it had not the runners nor the covering rollers, nor was it adapted to planting in check-rows. As presented to the Patent Office in 1850, and in the models exhibited to the court, it was planned for an automatic drill-planter. The experiment made in 1849, when Remy worked it by hand, was a mere experiment, which was never repeated. It may have presented one or two ideas in advance of other machines, but it can hardly be said to anticipate the machine which we have described as Brown’s. Were it not for the application for a patent it would justly be regarded as an abandoned experiment, iueapable of being set up against any other claim. Can the fact that such an U2>plication was made and afterwards voluntarily withdrawn, and never renewed, make any difference? We think not. liad [211]*211a patent been actually granted to Penny & Kelly, it would have been different. The case would then have come directly within the seventh section of the act of 1886, which makes a “patent” or a “description in a printed publication” of the invention claimed, a bar to a further patent therefor. But a mere application for a patent is not mentioned as such a bar. It can only have a bearing on the question of prior invention or discovery. If upon the whole of the evidence it appears that the alleged prior invention or discovery was only an experiment and was never perfected or brought into actual use, but was abandoned and never revived by the alleged inventor, the mere fact of having unsuccessfully applied for a patent therefor, cannot take the case out of the category of unsuccessful experiments.
The next maehiue which we will examine is that of James Abbott, which is strenuously claimed as an anticipation of the complainant’s machine, or of material parts thereof. Abbott resided iu Brimfield, Peoria County, Illinois. Models of his machine are in evidence.
Abbott then says:
“The next machine which I constructed was, according to the best of my recollection, in the spring of 1852, certainly not later than 1853.”
He then proceeds to describe the machine. It had but one frame, and whilst it exhibited some of the same parts which are found in Brown’s machine, yet it is obviously a different machine from Brown’s, and intended as an automatic drill instead of a check-row planter. But as, in our judgment, the weight of the evidence (of which considerable was taken) is that it was constructed subsequently to Brown’s, it is unnecessary to give it further consideration.
Another machine much relied on by the appellees .was that of Kirkman, of .Peoria County, Illinois, a farmer, but formerly a millwright aud engineer.
It will thus be seen, that Kirkmau’s machine had some of the prominent features of Brown’s. It differed from it in not being a check-row planter, and not planting in hills but in rows, and acting automatically simply as a drill, and having but a single frame.
Considerable evidence, much of it apparently conflicting, was adduced as to the time when Kirkmau’s machine, or rather several machines (for he built three at different times), were constructed. [The court here stated and examined this testimony, as to date, and continued.]
A review of the entire evidence on the subject leads us to the conclusion that Kirkman’s second machine, called the "Wrigley machine, was made in the early part of 1850; that he tried it that spring unsuccessfully; that he then laid it by, and did not attempt to use it again until the spring of 1852, after he had made a material alteration in it — which alteration was made after the summer of 1851 — and not completed, as it would seem from the evidence of Kingsley, until the spriug of 1852. This would make the machine of Kirkman about contemporary with that of Brown’s second machine, which he completed and operated in the spring of 1852; but would bring it, as a completed machine, subsequent to the halt-sized machine which Brown completed and operated in the spring of 1851, and publicly exhibited in September of that year.
The machine referred to by Abbott, as having been made by Kirkman by the aid of drawings furnished by him, was [214]*214most probably the third machine made by Kirkman, in 1856, which is the only one made by him having iron wheels.
The last machines relied on as antedating the appellant’s are those of Joab Brown, also of Peoria County, Illinois.
A machine of one Farley, invented in January or February, 1853, was introduced in the ease for the purpose of showing that Brown’s improvement of placing the driver on the machine, which formed one of the subjects of his second patent, had been anticipated. There was a long platform on Earle’s machine, the front part resting on and fixed to the runners, the rear resting on the axle of covering wheels following the runners. The driver rode on this platform, and by stepping forward he could press the runners deeper into the gound, and by stepping back he could raise them out of the ground, using the wheels as a fulcrum. The bearing of this machine on some of the reissued patents will be noted hereafter.
On the subject of the flipper valve (so called), the appellees have introduced two machines, one by Charles Finn, for which he applied for a patent in April, 1852, but which application was rejected; and the other by Jarvis Case, for which he applied for a patent December 9th, 1853.
These devices will be examined hereafter, when we come to consider the claim for the flipper valve as contained in the reissued patent No. 1095 (see infra, page 233).
We have thus gone over and explained, as well as the [217]*217subject will admit, the various machines and inventions which constitute the history of the special art under consideration, up to the time that Brown’s machine was produced. In the light of this review we are to determine the extent and character of his various patents and claims, and how far they are valid or void.
It is very obvious, at a glance, that the claim of reissue No. 1037, which is for the construction of a shoe or runner for seed-planting machines generally, cannot be sustained. That device was used long before Brown made his machine. Without adverting to Thomas’s cottouseed-planter, it was contained in Todd’s patent in 1843, and was used by James Abbott in 1848, by Kirkman in 1850, and probably by Joab Brown in the same year and the . year before. There is nothing in the particular form and shape of the appellant’s runner which is sufficiently diverse from others that preceded it, to entitle it to the merit of an invention.
Most of the other claims are more complicated, and require more careful consideration to understand their fair scope, in view of what had been accomplished before. It may be remarked in passing that, in our view, the several reissues are for things contained within the machines and apparatus described in the original patents; but whether they were anticipated by prior inventions, or are void for any other reason applicable to patents and claims generally, is still open. The question of fraud in obtaining these reissues must be regarded as settled by the decision of the Commissioner of Patents.
The first patent in the series of reissues is No. 1086, by which is claimed as the invention of the appellant a “seed-planting machine, constructed principally of framework, the front part of which is supported on uot less than two runners or shoes, with upward-inclining edges, and the rear part supported on not less than two wheels, the latter being arranged to follow the former, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.”
The machine is so constructed that an additional pair of wheels may be attached to it for the purpose of dropping [218]*218the seed automatically where the nature of the soil is such as to render this method admissible in check-row planting. But with that aspect of the machine we are not at present concerned, except as it affects the general description of the machine as a whole. The specification describes the manner of its construction and operation for both automatic planting and hand planting. It is in its latter aspect that we shall principally examine it.
The last clause of the above claim, “ substantially as and for the purpose set forth,” throws us back to the specification for a qualification of the claim, and the several elements of which the combination is composed. The thing patented is not only, first, a seed-planting machine, made principally of framework; but, secondly, it is composed of two distinct parts; thirdly, the front part is supported on two or more runnel’s with upward-inclining edges; fourthly, the rear part is supported on two or more wheels, arranged to follow the respective runners; and each and all of these parts are to be thus constructed and combined “ substantially as and for the purpose set forth.” That is to say, the object and purpose of the machine as a seed-planting machine is explained to be to plant corn in check-rows, so that it may be cultivated both ways, and.its construction is adapted to that end. The devices used for effecting this purpose, both automatically and by hand, are described in the specification, but they are claimed in separate patents, aud only affect the one in question as they modify and affect the general structure of the machine. Again, the object and the purpose of constructing the machine of framework in two distinct parts, supported separately, one by the runners and the other by the wheels, is expressed to be “so that the rollers may rise aud fall without disturbing the runners, or so that the runners may yield or move independently of the rollers.” The particular manner of connecting the parts, although described in the specification, is the subject of a separate patent. Again, the object and purpose of the runners and wheels or rollers, the latter arranged to follow the former, is set forth, the former to make a furrow for the seed, the [219]*219latter to “ close up and press the earth down over the seeds.” The adaptation of the machine, and the several parts mentioned, to these several objects and purposes, is thus made a part of the combination of elements called for and made requisite in the claim under consideration.
The claim thus limited is considerably narrowed in its operation. It is substantially for a combination of the material parts of the entire machine, and no one can be said to infringe it who does not use the entire combination.
The first question to settle is, whether, as thus limited and restricted, the patent is valid, or whether the invention, as thus patented, was anticipated by prior inventions.
It is obvious that we may lay out of the question all seed-drills. They were not constructed for the specific purpose for which this machine was constructed, namely, to plant corn in check-rows, and had not the apparatus adapted to such a purpose. The plough-shaped drill of Todd, though it had a cutter under the front part and roller drawn behind for covering the grain, was only a step in the right direction. It was a mere drill, planting in single rows, and not adapted to plant in check-rows; and it was handled and operated in an entirely different manner from Brown’s.
Earle’s, Mumma’s, and Remy & Kelly’s inventions may also be dismissed without observation. The description of them heretofore given shows that they were mere drills, that they had no covering-wheels, and were not constructed for, or adapted to, the purpose for which Brown’s machine was made. Besides, as before seen, the machine of Remy & Kelly was a mere experimental one, abandoned by the inventors. We may also lay out of view Abbott’s drill, constructed in 1848, the only one that can by possibility be brought into the case. That had no covering-wheels, had but one part or frame, and was not a check-row planter. Kirkman’s machine also had but a single frame or part; was a mere drill, not planting in check-rows, nor even in hills. Besides, as a machine, it was incomplete and unfinished until the alteration which was made in it in 1852, when it was first rendered capable of practical use.
[220]*220It is urged by the appellees that all those' parts of Kirk-man’s machine which were completed in 1850, and not subsequently altered, should be considered as perfected, although the machiné, as a whole, was not perfect., and did not subserve the expectation of the inventor until the alterations were made in the seeding apparatus in 1852. It is undoubtedly true that a subsequent inventor could' not claim as his original and first invention the separate parts of which Kirkman’s machine consisted, and which worked satisfactorily after the machine was perfected. This would prevent the appellant from claiming as his invention the several parts of which Kirkman’s machine consisted; but it would not prevent him from claiming such new combination of those parts with devices of his owu as would result in a useful and satisfactory machine adapted to the purposes of its construction.
The machines of Joab Brown' which are more or less relied on, were all composed of single frames entirely rigid. The machine with one runner, constructed in 1849, was a failure, and is not pretended to have been at all like the appellant’s. The machine with two rollers and one large wheel, constructed in 1850, was automatic, could only plant in rows, so as to be worked one way, and failed entirely as a check-row planter. The other machine or machines, constructed in 1850, had rollers, but these did not follow the runnel's until altered in 1853, and were not used for covering the corn, but for turning a shaft in the hoppers by which the seed was dropped. This is cleai’ly proven and is shown by their thickness, which was little over an inch. They were abandoned for the three-rowed machine without rollers, which was built in 1851, and for which Joab Brown applied for a patent in December, 1852. It is apparent that none of these machines anticipated the appellant’s machine as containing the particulars combined in the claim of the reissued patent No. 1036.
This patent, therefore, construed and limited in the manner before stated, we hold to be valid.
[221]*221The next question is whether, as thus construed, the patent is infringed by the defendants. It needs but a glance at the defendant Bergen’s machine, a large model of which is produced in court, to see that it has all the essential characteristics of the appellant’s machine.
The machine of Selby, which is the subject of the suit of Brown v. Selby and others, in the second case, has all the [222]*222material features above specified as contained in Bergen’s.
The next claim tó be considered is that of reissue 1038. The appellant describes the nature of the invention sought to be secured by that patent as follows:
“ The nature of this part of my invention consists in combining with a seed-planting machine constructed principally of framework, and with not less than two runners and two wheels, a hinged-joint between the point of the tongue and the rear part of the machine (or between what I term its ground supports), so that one part may, by means of said hinge-joint, be raised, lowered, adjusted, or supported on the other part for purposes herein mentioned; meaning by ‘ one part’ and ‘the other part’ the part in advance and the part in rear of said hinge-joint.”
The claim adopts nearly the same language, and is in the following terms:
“What I claim under this patent is, in combination with a seed-planting machine, constructed principally of framework, with not less than two runners and not less than two wheels, a hinged-joint between the point of the tongue and the rear part of the machine, so that one part of the framework may be raised, lowered, adjusted, or supported cm the other part, substantially as described.”
Understanding this claim as applying and confining to a seed-planting machine, consisting of two separate parts, with runners under one part and rollers or wheels under the other, we do not find in any of the machines produced to us this particular feature of the hinged-joint in combination with the elements referred to. Kirkmau’s came the nearest to it, if we should designate as a hinged-joint the free connection of his tongue with his machine, which was made by a common bolt between hounds, like those of a wagon. But his machine lacked the elements of the two distinct parts [223]*223or frames, which are essential in Brown’s, and are implied in the claim of this patent. The hinged-joint as an element in the combination with which it is connected, and of which it forms a part, is useful and valuable. Without it the machine would lack a very material ingredient of its efficiency and usefulness. The device of connecting and combining it with the two integral parts of the machine, and thus connecting and combining those parts §o as to produce a useful' effect, is one that may be properly denominated invention, although the hinged-joint itself may have existed in other machines which perhaps suggested its use in this. Indeed, the hinged-joint, in one form or another, is an old device. It is exhibited in the reaches of a common wagon, whose fore wheels and hind wheels, in passing over inequalities and obstructions, rise and fall independently of each other. But in the corn-planting machine it has two specific and useful effects, namely, in securing the freedom of the runner from needless disturbance from the rear part of the machine as it pursues its path along the surface, making a furrow of uniform depth, and in enabling the attendant to raise the part containing the runners out of the ground with ease by means of a lever resting on the other part.
The appellees insist that this patent attempts to secure an‘ old device merely applied to a new use, and that the supposed new úse is analogous to that which the same device subserved in the machine of Remy & Kelly. But we have seen that the machine of Remy & Kelly was a mere experiment, abandoned by the inventors. And the device in question is not claimed as an original invention, nor as an improvement; it is only patented in combination with other material elements of the machine to which it is attached as a part. As an element in that combination alone is it claimed. The combination expressed in the claim, viewed as an entirety, and in reference to its purposes and uses, is new, and produces a new and useful result. And it is no objection to the validity of a patent for such a combination that some of the elements of which it is composed are not new.
It is objected to several of the patents under consideration [224]*224that they do not state what parts of the maehiuo patented are new and what parts are old, and that they are therefore void. There is nothing in the patent law which, in terms, requires the patentée to do this. The language of the act of 1836, under which these patents were drawn, is that before any inventor shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery he shall deliver a description thereof, and of the manner and process of making, constructing, using, and eompounding'the same, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable a person skilled in the art to reproduce it; and the act directs that the inventor shall “particularly specify and .point out the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his own invention or discovery.” This, of course, involves an elimination of what he claims as new from what he admits to be old. But what can be a more explicit declaration of what is new and what is old than the summary of the patentee’s claim at the close of the specification, if that is made in clear and distinct terms, or in terms so clear and distinct as to be fairly understood. It implies that all the rest is old, or, if not old, that the applicant does not claim it so far as that patent is concerned. If the patentee by his specification, including the summary claim at its close, points out and distinguishes what he claims as his own invention, it is all that is required. That, if we can find it without difficulty or embarrassment, is what he claims as new; the rest he impliedly, if he does not expressly, disclaims as old. No pai’ticular form of words is necessary if the meaning is clear.
These observations apply equally to patents for combinations and patents for improvements. Where a patentee, .’after describing a machine, claims as his invention a certain combination of elements, or a certain device, or part of the machine, this is an implied declaration, as conclusive, so far as that patent is concerned, as if it wex*e expressed, that the specific combination or thing claimed is the only part which the patentee regards as new. True, he or some other person may have a distinct patent for the portions not covered by this; but that will speak for itself. So far as the patent [225]*225in question is concerned, the remaining parts are old or common and public.
The patents under consideration expressly declare, for the most part, what the patentee claims; generally referring, it is true, to the specification as embodying the substantial form of the invention. Such a reference is pi’oper if it does not introduce confusion and uncertainty, and is often necessary for restraining the too great generality, or enlarging the literal narrowness of the claim.
These remarks apply to reissue 1038, which we are now considering. We regard it as sufficiently explicit; and we think the patent is valid.
The next inquiry is whether this patent is infringed by the appellees. ’ It is apparent on inspection of the models before referred, to that they exhibit every requirement of the patent. They clearly have, “in combination with a seed-planting machine, constructed principally of framework,” and consisting of two separate parts, with two runners under one part and two wheels under the other, a hinged-joint between the point of the tongue and the rear of the machine, so that one part of the framework may be raised, lowered, adjusted, or supported on the other part, substantially as described in Brown’s specification. In Selby’s machine, it is true, the hinge-joint is not located at the same point (the seed-boxes) as in Brown’s machine, but is at the front point or toe of the runnei’. This is not a substantial difference. The office, purpose, operation, and effect are the same- as in Brown’s machine, and a change a little more or less backward or forward does not change the substantial identity of the thing. The same remark applies to the location of the hinge-joint in Bergen’s machine, which is at the rear part of the front frame.
We do not see how it can be seriously contended that either of the machines is not an infringement of this patent.
Reissue 1039 contains two claims, as follows:
“ What I claim under this patent is a seed-planting machine, wherein the seed-dropping mechanism is operated by hand or [226]*226by an attendant, in contradistinction from ‘mechanical dropping,’ the mounting of said attendant upon the machine, in such a position that he may readily see the previously made marks upon the ground, and operate the dropping mechanism to conform thereto, substantially as herein set forth.
“I also claim, in combination with a seed-planting machine, composed substantially of framework, and upon which the person who works the seed-slides or valves sits or stands, a lever or its equivalent, by which a driver or second attendant may raise or lower that part of the framework that carries the attendant and the seeding devices, and thus ease the machine in passing over intervening obstacles or in turning around, substantially as described.”
The first of these claims, if construed simply as claiming the placing of the seed-dropper on the machine, would probably be void, as claiming a mere result, irrespective of the means by which it is accomplished. But if construed as claiming the accomplishment of the result by substantially the means described in the specification, it is free from that objection; and we ought to give a favorable construction, so as to sustain the patent if it can fairly be done. By reading the claim in connection with the final qualifying clause, thus, “the mounting of said attendant upon the machine, &c., substantially as herein set forth,” the fair construction would seem to include the means and manner of placing him upon the machine. This view is corroborated by reference to the body of the specification. ££ To enable others skilled in the art,” says the patentee, “ to make and use this invention, I will proceed to describe the same, with reference to the drawings.” He then gives a detailed description of the seat or platform and its relation to the other parts, and the mode of occupying and using the same. Construing the claim in this manner, is it then a valid claim ?
The only device of a similar character at all competing with it in the matter of time, was that used by Joab Brown, in his machines constructed or’ altered in the spring of 1851, the same spring in which the appellant’s machine was made. Which was first made, it is impossible for us from the evi[227]*227dence to tell. Joab Brown, as well as the applicant, applied for a patent for oue of his machines having the arrangement of a seat for the dropper. A patent was granted to the appellant, and none was granted to Joab Brown. The Patent Office subsequently amended the appellant’s patent so as to include a claim for this very thing in question. Under these circumstances, in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the presumption is in favor of the appellant. The burden of proof is on the party who sets up the objection of “prior use” against the patent.
The second claim is for a combination, embracing, as one of its elements, the arrangement or seat for the dropper last described; and if that was new, this combination must also be new. And, indeed, we shall look in vain in any previous machine for the lever here described in the combination with which it is associated. Standing by itself, the lever as well as the hinged-joint was exhibited in the experimental machine of Remy & Kelly. But as, in our view, that machine was never brought into successful operation until after Brown’s invention was completed, we do not regard the fact referred to as seriously affecting the question. The particular combination described by the patent under consideration is new, and the claim is valid.
This is the proper place, however, to notice an objection made against the three patents conjointly, namely: reissues 1036, 1038, and 1039. It is contended that they are for substantially the same combination. We do not think that this is the fact. We l’egard the reissue 1036 as a patent for the corn-planting machine in outline, comprising its most essential elements, namely: constructed principally of framework “ substantially as and for the purpose set forth ” in the specification; containing the two frames or parts, loosely or freely connected; one supported by the runners, the other by the wheels following them, each having its distinct purpose as indicated; and the seeding apparatus being arranged for planting in check-rows, whether automatically or by hand, the method of each being shown in the specification. This patent does not call for a hinged-joint with its particular [228]*228appliances, or for a particular arrangement of seat or location for the dropper. Reissue 1038 is for a different combination, including the separate parts or frames, the runners, the wheels, and lastly the hinged-joint so arranged that one part of the framework may be raised and lowered on the other part. Reissue 1039 claims, first, a seat or platform for the dropper, on'the machine, so that, he may watch the cross-rows and plant by them; secondly, in addition thereto, the particular device of the lever, by which the driver may raise or lower the framework that carries the dropper.
This view of the relative objects of the three patents, as we think, shows that they are not obnoxious to the objection raised.
Having already examined the question of infringement as it respects reissues 1036 and 1038, it remains to inquire whether the appellants have infringed reissue 1039. Of this there can be no doubt. In both of their machines the dropper is mounted on the machine on a seat or platform arranged for that purpose, so as to observe the cross-rows, and drop by them; and in both, levers are used (not precisely in the form of Brown’s, but equivalent thereto, and substantially the same), by which the driver may raise or lower that-part of the framework that carries the dropper and the seeding devices. In Bergen’s machine, this lever is the rear frame itself, which is hinged to the rear part of the seeding-frame, and is operated by the driver by tilting it back and forward by his own weight.
It is unnecessary to examine reissue 1010, as there is no pretence that the appellees have infringed that patent.
The second group of reissues is next to be considered.
The first, No. 1091, after describing the entire machine as finally perfected by Brown, prior to the issue of his second patent, May 8th, 1855, has the following claims:
“First. In combination with a seed-planting machine that is operated by hand, the placing of both the driver and the person who operates the seed-slides or valves, upon the machine, in such position as that each may attend to his particular duty [229]*229without interfering with that of the other, substantially as described.
“ I also claim, in combination with a seed-planting machine, that is operated by hand, and upon which the driver and the person who works the seed-slides or valves sit or stand, the so locating of said seats or stands, as that the weight of one of the persons may be used to counterbalance or overbalance the weight of the other, for the purpose of more readily raising or lowering the seeding apparatus, substantially as and for the purpose described.”
These claims are analogous to those of reissue 1089, and the first is anticipated by the machines of Joab Brown, constructed and altered in the spring of 1851. It is not pretended that the appellant placed both attendants on his machines uutil the spring of 1853, when he placed the driver’s seat, as well as the dropper’s, on the twelve machines which he manufactured and sold at that time.
The second claim is for the relative location of the seats for the driver and operator, such that one of them may overbalance the weight of the other, and thus more readily raise or lower the seeding apparatus. The claim is made only in reference to machines operated by hand, on which both driver and operator sit or stand. The seats themselves can be of little consequence in this combination. The relative location of the attendants is the material thing.
The process of tilting the frame of a seed-planter on-the . wheels as a fulcrum, by shifting the weight of the driver standing or sitting thereon, was exhibited in Kirkman’s machiue, in the spring of 1852, and in Farley’s model, made in January, and publicly deposited in the Patent Office in February, 1853.
The appellant does not fix the date of his alleged improvement earlier than the 20th of April, 1853, it being first introduced into the twelve machines built in that year. He was anticipated, therefore, by Kirkman and Farley, so far as their machines were identical with his. They do not come within the literal terms of his claim which refers the improvement only to machines operated by hand, and on which the oper[230]*230ator is carried. Kirkman and Farley had no operator, and, of course, had none on their machines. Was this difference material? The device was not altered by Brown substantially, in form, operation, or purpose. The only difference was the presence of the dropper on the machine, making a greater weight to be raised than existed before, and applying it to a check-row corn-planter. It seems to us that it was simply the application of an old device to a new use.
We are of opinion, therefore, that reissue 1091 is void.
The claim of reissue 1092 is as follows:
“What I claim under this patent is: In combination with a seed-planting machine, operated by hand, and having its seeding devices forward of the centre of the wheels, and forward of the driver’s seat and a hinged connection, the locating of the seat in such relation to a line drawn through the centres of the wheels or ground-supports, as that the occupant of said seat may, by moving himself, or throwing his weight forward or backward on his seat, without the necessity of rising, walking, or standing over or near the seeding devices, force the seeding apparatus into, or raise it from, the ground, substantially as described."
After a careful consideration of this claim, we are brought ■to the conclusion that the subject of it is not patentable. Prior inventions having placed the driver on the machine, and having constructed the platform in such manner that his movement backward or forward would raise or lower the seeding apparatus, and the seat itself not being claimed as new, it can hardly be contended that the proper location of the seat for effecting the same object, required the exercise of inventive power.
The next patent, reissue 1093, after describing the machine as before, with its runners and front frame, its wheels and rear frame, its seat for the driver over the wheels, and contrivance for raising and lowering the front’frame, its seat for the dropper over the runners, its hinged-joint, &e., concludes as follows:
“ There are two points in this machine that have unvarying positions or heights with regard to the ground, viz.: the point [231]*231of the tongue, as its height is defined by horses’ necks, to which it is attached, and they standing of course upon the ground, and the journals or axle of the covering or supporting wheels F F, as they roll on the ground, and between these fixed points, the hinged connection between the front and rear part of the machine, is made so as to admit of raising or lowering the seeding devices. ,
“Having thus fully described the nature and object of this part of my invention, what I claim under this patent is, in combination with a seed-planting machine that has a hinged or yielding joint between its fixed points of support, and with its seeding devices between said points, the so connecting of the parts between said fixed points of support as that that portion of the machine carrying the seeding devices may be raised up out of the ground by the attendant riding on the machine, and be carried by the tongue or horses’ necks, and the supporting wheels, substantially as and for the purpose described.”
The precise thing claimed here, after defining the combination of which it is to form a part, is, “ the so connecting of the parts ” as to produce the result mentioned, “ substantially as and for the purpose described.” If this means to include any and every connection of the parts which will produce the result “substantially as described” (which result is to enable the attendant, riding on the machine, to raise that portion of the machine carrying the seediug devices out of the ground so as to be carried on the horses’ necks and the wheels), then the claim was anticipated by Kirkman, for the connection of the parts in his machine enabled the attendant, riding on the machine, to raise the front part which carries the seeding apparatus, out of the ground, when it would be suspended on the horses’ necks and the wheels; and he had a hinged joint between the fixed points of support. The same might be said of the machine of Remy & Kelly, if it were to be taken into consideration in determining this question. But if the claim is to be construed as limited to the mode of connecting the parts in the appellant’s machine (being a hinged connection between the two frames, and, therefore, different from Kirkman’s machine), and to the means by which the final result was accomplished, namely, by the [232]*232shifting of the driver’s weight ou the machine (and, therefore, different from Remy & Kelly’s), then this objection would be obviated. But thus modified, it would substantially correspond with reissue 1038, being simply for a mode of doing that, with the driver ou the machine, which was done before, under 1038, with the driver on the ground, employing only in addition the mode of operation used by Kirkman. In other respects the two combinations would be precisely the same.
We are of opinion, therefore, that this patent cannot be sustained.
The next patent, reissue 1094, is for a matter too frivolous to form the. subject of invention. It is Bimply for a peg or stop to prevent the rear part of the machine from tipping so much as to dump the driver on to the ground. No mechanic of any skill would construct a machine of the character described without providing some such arrangement. This patent is not sustained.
The latest patent of the series, reissue 1095, is for a peculiar valve in the tube through which the seed is dropped to the ground, called the flipper valve. When .the machine is in motion, the time taken for the seed to drop from the hopper to the ground, supposing it to drop from a height of only 18 or 20 inches, would carry it forward more than a foot after its discharge, and thus carry it beyond the cross-row. It became important, therefore, to drop the seed from a point near the ground, or from the bottom of the tube instead of the hopper, at each movement of the lever by the operator. To do this required two movements; one for dropping the seed from the hopper into the tube; the other for dropping it from thence to the ground. By the device described in this patent, which was noticed at the commencement of this opinion, both of these movements of the seed take place at the same instant and by one movement of the hand; the seed for one hill being dropped into the ground at the same time that the seed for the next hill is dropped into the tube.
The claim of the patent is in the following words:
“Having thus fully described my invention, what I claim [233]*233under this patent, is so combining with a lever, by which both may be operated, a valve or slide in the seed-hopper and a valve in the seed-tube, as that a half motion of the lever by the operator riding on the machine, by which they are operated, shall both open and close the seed passages at regular periods, and pass measured quantities only, substantially as described.”
As before stated, the mode by which this was effected was by placing in the seed-tube a long slender valve composed of a slip of metal, suspended on a pivot in the middle, so that when one end was pushed forward the other end would be pushed backward. Iu this way each movement of the upper extremity would let a charge of seed into the tube on one side and keep it there, whilst the simultaneous movement of the lower extremity would discharge the previous charge on the other side.
The appellees endeavored to show that this apparatus was anticipated by the inventions of Charles Finn and Jarvis Case, before mentioned.
[234]*234The machine of Case, which he swears he constructed in March, 1858, is still more unlike Brown’s in form, though less unlike in operation. It has two independent valves, one in the hopper to let'the seed into the tube, and one at the bottom of the tube to let it out. These two valves are so connected by a chain or string that both are opened at once. A spring is arranged to shut them as soon as possible, so as to prevent the seed admitted above from escaping below until the next movement of the lever. This apparatus, it is true, requires but one movement of the hand for each dropping, the spring performing the other. But the spring has to be drawn by the force of the hand so as to have the necessary recoil. The same strength has to be exerted by the operator as if he made both movements with his hand. It is evident that this device is also different from the appellant’s. The two have similarities, but they are essentially distinct machines.
But it is insisted that Brown, in I860., admitted in a newspaper article that the process in question was old. We have examined the article, and, according to our construction, his declaration amounted in substance to nothing more than that the principle of the double drop was old (which was probably true), and that Case’s application of it was old (which may or may not be true); but it does not contain, or amount to, an admission that his own peculiar process was old.
We think, therefore, that this patent must be sustained.
The last patent is clearly infringed by the Selby machine. The flipper valve and mode of operating it are almost precisely the same.
In the case of the Bergen machine, it is contended that no lever is used for moving the connecting rod backward and forward between the hoppers. A fixed perpendicular handle is used instead of a lever. The question is, whether that is such an alteration as to change the character of the combination. The object in view is to put into the hand of the operator something by which he can move the connecting rod, and consequently open the valves, the instant he [235]*235comes to tbe cross-row. It is of no consequence in the world whether the cross-bar moves in the same direction with his hand or in the reverse direction. A lever working on a pivot or fulcrum between the hand and the connecting rod would cause the latter to move in the reverse direction to that of the haud; a lever working on a pivot or fulcrum below or beyond the connecting rod, would cause the latter to move with the hand; so would a lever or handle .firmly fixed to the rod. The claim is for “a lever or its equivalent,” in combination with other things. "Whilst in most cases a mere handle is not the equivalent of a lever, because not capable of performing the same functions, in this case it is an equivalent, because it does perform precisely the same function in substantially the same way.
In our judgment both machines are an infringement of the patent.
We have thus, with perhaps unnecessary detail, gone over and considered the various questions and points raised in these cases. The result is, that the reissued patents, numbered respectively 1036, 1038, and 1039, of the first series, and 1095, of the second series, are sustained as good and valid patents, and that the appellees arc infringing the same.
Decrees reversed, and the causes - remanded, to be proceeded in
According to law.
See a drawing of it, supra, p. 190, Fig. 7.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 U.S. 181, 23 L. Ed. 160, 23 Wall. 181, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-corn-planter-patent-scotus-1874.