Collins Co. v. Coes

Mr. Chief .Justice Puller delivered the opinion of the court. ¥e concur with the Circuit Court in' its disposition of this case and the grounds upon which it rested its decision. The wrench-bar, the fixed jaw' upon its upper end, the movable jaw sliding upon the wrench-bar,- the screw-rod parallel with the wrench-bar, the rosette upon the lower end of the screw-rod, the step-plate surrounding the wrench-bar, the wooden handle secured by the nut at its extreme lower end, are all described in. the patent to Coes; and the nut screwed upon the wrench-bar just below the step-plate, a,nd provided with a recess for the purpose of forming a ferrule for the top of the wooden handle, which is not in the Coes patent, but is in complainant’s reissue, had already been in use in the Hewitt or Dixie wrench for the same purposes. The disclaimer conceded that “the nut P, combined with the wrench-bar, and *67 interiorly recessed at cl, for the purpose set forth ” was an old device; but it is claimed that the device is new when the recessed nut and wrench-bar are in combination with the handle, the step, the screw-rod and the movable jaw. The handle, the step, the screw-rod and the jaw are all to be found in the Coes and Dixie wrenches, and the recessed nut of the Dixie wrench constituted, by the shoulder which it made at its upper end, a step upon which the screw rested, and served every purpose designated in the reissued patent in suit as intended to be secured by such recessed nut. This in itself justified the finding that “the application'to the bar of the Coes wrench, for the purpose of securing and supporting the step and resisting the strain, of a nut already in use, for the same purpose, on the Hewitt or Dixie wrench, lacks the novelty of invention requisite to support a patent.” This conclusion is not affected by the fact that in complainant’s wrench the screw-rod of the Coes wrench is availed of instead of the screw-sleeve of the Dixie wrench. Complainant’s first claim is as follows: “1. The step* combined with the wrench-bar and supported by the nut F, or its equivalent, at the place where the step is connected with the bar, in such manner that the step can be removed from the bar without cutting or abrasion of parts.” The specification says: “ On the bar A, just below the step E, is cut the screw thread i, on which screws the nut F, forming a projection from the wrench-bar, on which rests the step E, and thus transmits' the back pressure put upon the step directly to the. wrench-bar at the place of connection therewith, and thus relieves the wooden handle therefrom, the connection of the step with the bar being made in such manner that the step may be removed pr taken off the bar without any cutting or abrasion of parts.” The elements of this combination are the support of the step by the nut F, the transmission of back pressure directly to the wrench-bar through that nut, and the removability of the step without cutting or abrasion of parts. Now the Dixie wrench contained the nut F, screwed on the wrench-bar, and transmitting the back pressure directly to it, and removable without cutting or abrasion, by being simply unscrewed. *68 The second claim is-: “ The nut F, combined with the wrench-bar, and interiorly recessed at d, for the purpose set forth.” This, as so stated, was disclaimed, except when said recessed nut and wrench-bar are in combination with the handle, the step, the screw-rod and the movable, jaw. It was said in Hailes v. Albany Stove Company, 123 U. S. 582, 587, the court speaking through Mr. Justice Bradley: “'A. disclaimer is usually and properly employed for the surrender of a separate claim in a patent, or some other distinct and separable matter, which can be exscinded without mutilating or changing what is left standing. Perhaps it may be used to limit a claim to a particular class of objects, or even to change the form of a claim which is too broad in .its- terms; but certainly it cannot be used to chainge the character of th^ invention. And if it requires an amended specification or supplemental description to make an \ altered claim ' intelligible ór ■relevant, whilst it may possibly present a case for a surrender, and reissue, it is clearly not adapted to a;disclaimer.”' • The complainant’s qualified' disclaimer is an admission that the second' claim of the • patent is void for want of novelty, which is- true, even -if the qualification weife effectual, since, as we have seen, the' screw-rod and movable jaw of the patent have no different effect from the .screw-sleeve and movable jaw of the prior Dixie wrench, upon the other , parts of , the combination. • . . The other' claim is: ■ “ 3. The nut F, combined with the threaded bar, and performing the office of supporting the step, and also, of rigidly fastening it to the bar, for the purpose set forth.” The specification says: “ The nut not only supports the step,- but can be made to rigidly fasten the step to -the bar by screwing it' firmly up against the step, so as- to gripe it between'itself and the shoulder b, .thus giving the'nut; so to speak, a double office, viz.,: that of supporting the step, and, also, that of fastening it rigidly to the ban The nut is interiorly recessed at d, for -the purpose of forming a ferrule for the top of the-wooden handle.” .The'purpose of supporting the step by the nut F, and fastening the step rigidly to the wrench-bar by means of; that nut, is the relief of~the wooden' *69 handle from the strain of back pressure. In the Dixie wrench the step and. nut were made of one and the same piece of metal, thereby fully attaining the object of holding the step-plate rigidly fastened in position. In the Coes wrench the step was rigidly fastened to the bar by being griped between a shoulder above it and upon the bar and the handle below it, - which was backed up by the nut screwed upon the lower extremity of the bar. Dispensing with a washer between a nut and that upon which it acts, makes no change in :the office of the nut.' The action of the nut M of the Coes wrench in griping the step-plate is the same as that of the nut F of the patent. This third claim is" also void for want of novelty. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.