This witness was not contradicted, nor did cross-examination in any way qualify his very positive statements.

Upon the record we are persuaded that, simple though it was, Weber's snap connection was a meritorious invention and are not satisfied that defendant's modification, with its "bridge" across the two apertures for engagement escapes the claim. It is not necessary to add anything to Judge Ray's full discussion of the case.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

WEBER ELECTRIC CO. v. NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC FIXTURE CO. (UNION ELECTRIC CO., Intervener).

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 10, 1914.)

No. 123.

1. PATENTS (§ 328*)-VALIDITY-CONSTRUCTION-CLAIMS.

Weber patent, No. 916,812, claim 2, for an incandescent electric lamp socket, calling for "other interengaging means" for preventing a relative rotative movement of the interlocking tubular members of the socket than that described, was void as in effect covering all the various interengaging means of the prior art.

2. PATENTS (§ 328*)-VALIDITY-INCANDESCENT LAMP SOCKETS.

Weber patent, No. 916,812, for an incandescent lamp socket, claims 1. 3, 8, 13, and 14, held valid and infringed.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Southern District of New York, holding a patent valid and infringed. The patent is No. 916,812, issued March 30, 1909, to August Weber and others for an "Incandescent Electric Lamp Socket." The claims sustained are numbers 1, 2, 3, 8, 13, and 14. The opinion of the District Judge will be found in 204 Fed. 79.

F. C. Lowthorp, of Trenton, N. J., for appellant.
F. C. Curtis, of Troy, N. Y., for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. This patent covers an improvement on an earlier device, the patent for which is considered in an opinion. handed down at the same time with this one. The socket as thus improved has an additional protection against rotation by a cut-metal engagement of parts 19 and 20. We think the improvement was novel and meritorious and concur fully with Judge Ray's reasoning and conclusions.

We think, however, that he erred in holding the second claim to be valid. The first two claims read as follows:

"1. In a device of the class described and in combination, a pair of tubular, sheet-metal members, one adapted to telescopically receive the other, having For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

mutually abutting cut-metal edges on the respective members to prevent relative rotative movement, and automatically interlocking means for preventing a telescopic movement of separation of one member from the other, said means permitting, without manipulation thereof, the telescopic application of the members to each other.

"2. In a device of the class described and in combination, a pair of interlocking, tubular sheet-metal members, one adapted to telescopically receive the other, having mutually abutting cut-metal edges on the respective members to prevent a telescopic movement of separation of one member from the other when interlocked; and having other interengaging means for preventing a relative rotative movement of the interlocked members."

[1] Claim 1, it will be observed, specifies the means for preventing relative rotative movement, viz., "mutually abutting cut-metal edges on the respective members." This means we are satisfied was patentable being an advance over whatever other means in the prior art had been employed to prevent relative rotation. But the second claim calls merely for "other interengaging means" for preventing relative rotation. This phrase would cover all the various interengaging means of the prior art, but the advance is a narrow one and the patent can be sustained only for the precise means which the patentee showed would accomplish the result. If claim 2 stood alone it might be saved by reading into it the specific device, but if this were read in it would be a mere duplicate of claim 1.

[2] With the elimination of claim 2 the decree of the District Court is affirmed, with five-sixths costs of this appeal to complainant.

READ MACHINERY CO. v. JABURG et al.

(District Court, S. D. New York. March 4, 1914.)

No. 7/88.

1. PATENTS (§ 26*)—“INVENTION"-COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS. "Invention" may be shown in a combination of old elements, where they coact to produce a novel and improved unitary result.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 27-30; Dec. Dig. § 26.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 4, pp. 3749-3754.] 2. PATENTS (§ 51*)—"ANTICIPATION."

To establish "anticipation" of a patent, it is necessary that the defendant show that all of the elements of the patented device or their mechanical equivalents are found in the same description or machine, where they do substantially the same work by substantially the same means.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 66-69, 72, 74; Dec. Dig. § 51.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, p. 411.]

3. PATENTS (§ 328*)-VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-CAKE MIXING MACHINE. The Read patent, No. 966,765, for a cake mixing machine, while for a combination of old elements, was not anticipated and discloses invention, and the machine is of great utility as shown by its wide acceptance and use by practical bakers. Also, held infringed.

For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

In Equity. Suit by the Read Machinery Company against John Jaburg and Hugo Jaburg. On final hearing. Decree for complain

ant.

Edmund Wetmore and Oscar W. Jeffery, both of New York City, for plaintiff.

A. G. N. Vermilya, of New York City, for defendants.

HUNT, Circuit Judge. The Read Machinery Company, assignee of Harry Read, charges John Jaburg and Hugo Jaburg with infringement of letters patent No. 966,765, issued August 9, 1910, alleged to cover certain new and useful improvements in cake mixing machines. The purposes and advantages of the device patented are stated and described in the application as follows:

"The object of the present invention is to improve the mechanical construction of such cake mixing machines, and in particular to provide an efficient and effectively disposed mechanism for operating the beater, a mechanism for changing the speed of rotation of the beater in mixing batches of material of varying consistency, a mechanism whereby the machine is stopped when it is desired to change the speed, and in means for moving the bowl into and out of engagement with the beater.

"The construction illustrated and described possesses advantageous features. Among these may be mentioned the ease with which the parts may be constructed and assembled and thereafter adjusted, and the compactness and simplicity of the cake mixer as a whole. In a cake mixer of this type it is desirable not only that the speed should vary in order to facilitate the working of batches of goods of greater or less consistency, but also as a means of gradually furthering the process of aeration of certain kinds of goods required to be exceedingly light and spongy."

The acts of infringement claimed are the sale of cake mixing machines embodying the combinations set forth in the sixth and tenth claims of the patent in suit. Those claims read as follows:

"6. A cake dough mixing machine, comprising a standard, a bowl, a bowl support movably mounted thereon, a vertical screw engaging said bowl support for adjusting the position thereof, a beater, a main shaft, an auxiliary shaft parallel with the main shaft, speed changing gears interposed between the main shaft and the auxiliary shaft and a mechanism whereby the gears of one shaft may be shifted and brought into and out of engagement with the gears of the other shaft to alter the speed of the beater."

"10. In a dough mixer, a standard, a bowl, a bowl support movably mounted thereon, a vertical screw engaging said bowl support for adjusting the position thereof, a beater adapted to operate within the bowl, means for rotating the beater upon its axis and moving the same in a circular path in said bowl, a main drive shaft, an auxiliary shaft arranged parallel to the main shaft, complementary speed change gears mounted on the main and auxiliary shafts, and means for selectively combining said gears in operative relation."

Defendants allege that their cake mixers are made in accordance with letters patent No. 989,733, issued to them as assignees of Harry E. Townsend; that during the course of prosecuting the application for the patent in suit plaintiff acquiesced in the rejection of claims and amended the specification and claims in such manner that he estopped himself from ever claiming any construction of the patent which would include within its scope any article made, sold, or used by the defendants; that others within the United States have been making and selling, without hindrance or interference on the part of plain

tiff, articles as fully within the terms of the claims of the patent as is any device made by defendants, whereby plaintiff is estopped from claiming infringement on the part of defendants; and that in view of the state of the art there was no invention and that the several elements of the claims of the alleged letters patent constitute only aggregations of old elements and no real combination.

The operation of the Read machine may be stated in this way: The power is applied to the flywheel which turns the main shaft; the gears on that shaft mesh with gears on the gear box which in turn are attached to the handle which projects from the front of the machine. Those gears mesh with gears on the auxiliary shaft so that the gear box may be turned by means of the handle to bring the gears in mesh in any one of the three speeds provided for; the power is transmitted through the gears referred to, through the auxiliary shaft, and on through the bevel gear mounted on the end of the auxiliary shaft and other gears provided therefor to the beater shaft which is mounted off the center of the bowl. The beater shaft is provided with a pinion meshing with a hollow gear, giving a planetary motion to the beater. Thus, power is transmitted from the flywheel to the beater so as to impart the necessary motion to the beater and to provide for change of its speed. By means of a vertical screw the bowl support holding the bowl is raised and lowered and the beater can be put at any depth in the mass which may be proper. Thus, the beater may be started on top of the batch of material and gradually pressed down on and through the mass, and the speed of the beater may be changed during this operation. The handles for changing the speed and raising the bowl are conveniently located at the front and top of the machine. The difference between mixing butter and sugar together and kneading flour was explained by one of the witnesses, who made it clear how important it is in manipulating materials such as go into the bowl that there shall be an opportunity to change the speed quickly, and how with the Read machine the operator stands with his hand on the screw and feeds it up gradually so as to incorporate the material by degrees, and as a higher speed is called for the gear box may be shifted in position by the handle in front and a higher speed given to it. The practical advantages of the machine appear to be: The saving of labor, economy in material, cleanliness and expedition, and its adaptability for use with mixtures of varying consistencies found in a bake shop.

It can be said that, although the patent for the cake mixing machine is a combination of generically old elements, under a well-established doctrine, if such parts or elements are so arranged as to unite in producing a novel and useful result, the combination as a whole is patentable. "The ease with which the parts can be constructed and assembled and thereafter adjusted and the compactness and simplicity of the cake mixer as a whole" is a recital of one of the advantages of the device; and the evidence clearly shows that the method of varying the speed in accommodation to the mixing of batches of dough is efficient. Obviously it is of great advantage to bakers that their workmen and material should be protected from grease and dirt

in any machine used for mixing dough. It is unnecessary to elaborate upon the advantages which bakers ascribe to the machine further than to say that they regard it as safe, simple, and capable of mixing any mixture, whether heavy or light, used in a bake shop, and to do it thoroughly and fast.

[1] Aggregation, as I understand it, will not apply where there is a combination of elements capable of coacting to produce a unitary result, provided such coaction produces novel and improved results which are useful. Forbush v. Cook, 2 Fish. 669, Fed. Čas. No. 4,930. Plaintiffs are well sustained in the proposition that if selected elements are adapted to a useful result, and an inventor utilizes such adaptability by uniting it with other elements of the combination to form a novel whole, invention may be claimed. National Cash Register Co. v. American Cash Register Co., 53 Fed. 372, 3 C. C. A. 559; San Francisco Bridge Co. v. Keating, 68 Fed. 351, 15 C. C. A. 476. Taken by itself the change speed device of the patent in suit would operate without the presence of the vertical screw, yet as said in the National Cash Register Co. Case, supra, each of the several elements in coaction does its appointed share toward effecting the single result achieved by the co-operation of all and demonstrates that each is, by the co-operation of the others, capacitated to contribute, by acting in its own peculiar way, to the common end.

[2] Upon the contention that there has been anticipation it is necessary, as I understand it, that the defendant shall show that all of the elements of the plaintiff's patent, or the mechanical equivalents, are found in the same description or machine where they do substantially the same work by substantially the same means. Owens Co. v. Twin City Separator Co., 168 Fed. 259, 93 C. C. A. 561.

[3] Applying this rule, defendant cannot prevail merely because there is in the present case a vertical screw in one of the former patents or publications offered in evidence, and speed change gears in another, and so on as to the various parts of the combinations of the sixth and tenth claims of the patent in suit. All of the parts of each combination in a single machine co-operating to produce the same result as is accomplished in the Read machine must be proved in order to justify the conclusion that the Read patent is invalid for lack of patentable novelty. And while there is testimony to the effect that there may be a substitution of some different member of the same class of devices as that of some particular device shown and described in the patent, still such showing does not negative the invention, particularly where such substitution, if attempted, would involve a substantial total reconstruction of the whole machine and still fail in producing the result achieved by the patent. In Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., 93 U. S. 366, 23 L. Ed. 907, the Supreme Court said anticipation would not be had "unless the prior patent describes the invention of the later one so fully that one acquainted with the art as it stood at the date of the prior patent could, without invention or assistance from the latter patent, practice it."

A vertical screw and a rack and pinion are not mechanical equivalents in the situation or environment wherein they are used in the