The object of the complainant’s invention, as stated in the letters patent itself, is “to provide the coupling with a packing which effectually prevents rattling, and which is very durable.” The complainant also states that he has invented a new and useful improvement in thill couplings, of which the following is a specification. He says:
This invention relates to that class of thill couplings which comprise a divided draft-eye on the vehicle, and a spherical wrist or knuckle on the thill or pole iron, which is adapted to be seated in the draft-eye.
The thill coupling is secured to the axle by means of a clip which securely and effectually fastens it. It consists of a lower fixed jaw secured to the under side of the axle, and projects forwardly therefrom; a movable upper jaw, which is hinged to the front end of the fixed or lower jaw; a clamping lever arranged underneath the fixed jaw, and pivoted to the end of a bent tension-spring; and a bail or loop which connects the lever with the movable jaw. The fixed and movable jaws constitute the draft-eye. The wrist or knuckle of the thill or pole iron is spherical in form, and is generally arranged, and should be arranged, between two side bars of the thill-iron. There is a cavity between the upper and lower jaws, into which the spherical, knuckle of the thill or pole iron fits. The spherical packing is intended to surround the wrist or knuckle of the thill or pole, and when in place is seated in the cavities of the jaws of the draft-eye. This packing is made usually of a flat piece of hard oak leather, so bent and molded by pressure as to have the required spherical form, but with the open joint extending along one side so that this split packing will
The complainant claims as his invention:
The combination with a draft-eye having spherical recesses in its jaws, and a draft-iron having a spherical knuckle, of an interposed spherical packing, provided with an open longitudinal joint along its side, and with truncated ends at the ends of said joint, said packing enveloping the knuckle entirely, and separating the same from the spherical bearing-surfaces of the surrounding draft-eye, substantially as set forth.
It cannot be successfully contended that this is not a most useful invention. It has come into common use, and is regarded as indispensable by all who use vehicles attached to and drawn by animals by means of a pole or thills. It is quite true that pieces of rawhide, cloth, or leather of any description, placed in the spherical recesses beneath the wrist or knuckle of the thill or pole, and also above before the draft-eye is closed and fastened, will form a sort of substitute for the packing described. . So pieces of flat leather so placed, the one piece above and the other piece below, if cut of the right size and thickness, will constitute a very inferior substitute for this packing; but such substitutes are not the equivalent of the packing described, either in appearance, design, or usefulness, and all substitutes of that description used prior to the complainant’s invention were of an inferí-
This court has carefully examined and studied the construction and uses of the patents claimed by the defendant to show anticipation, viz.: Letters patent No. 279,043, granted to H. Temple June 5, 1883; No. 357,221, granted to D. Murray February 8, 1887; No. 377,861, granted to D. Murray February 14, 1888; No. 485,856, granted to C. C. Bradley November 8, 1892; No. 341,235, granted to W. H. Hannan May 4, 1886; No. 463,616, granted to G. L. and F. S. Blackman November 24, 1891; also Canadian letters patent No. 29,891, granted to D. Murray September 18, 1888—and is of the opinion and holds that the defense of anticipation is not made out.
The Bradley patent of November 8, 1892, does show a draft-eye having spherical recesses in its jaws, and also a draft-iron having a spherical knuckle intended to fit in the recesses, as does the patent in suit. But they are not the same—in fact, are quite' different, both in design, operation, and results. The same may be said of the Blackman patent and of the Murray patent and of the others referred to.
The truth is that prior patentees had for a long time struggled with the problem of inventing thill couplings with recesses to receive the knuckle at the end of the thill or pole, with such packing properly fitted, that rattling and undue wear and squeaking might be done away with, and so adjusted and attached as to be easily handled, and the user free from danger. Several had succeeded to an extent, but no one had made a success, and it remained for the complainant in this action to so combine various materials in a new way and form with new designs in many instances as to produce the desired result.
The contention of the defendant that nothing but mechanical skill has been displayed by the complainant in his invention is not sustained by the evidence. There has been invention, new forms, new combinations, new arrangements, all combined in such a way as to produce results not before attained. We have much more than a change of form, or a juxtaposition of' parts, or of the external arrangement of things. We have originality of form and of arrangement; we have new ideas, and we have results which have been sought after, but not heretofore attained. The complainant has not used prior thill couplings, although his thill coupling does resemble, in many respects, prior inventions. The complainant’s packing is in some respects an old form, but, taken as a whole, it is new. It is said by the defendant that the complainant’s packing performs the same function that is to be expected of any packing used as the complainant uses his. The packings heretofore used in connection with thill couplings have been intended to accomplish the result attained by the complainant, but have utterly failed to accomplish that result. They have not been constructed, shaped, or formed as is the complainant’s packing. The complainant has done successfully what others have attempted to do, but have failed in doing. The mode and manner and idea are new, and the desired result is attained. The result attained is most useful and beneficial. If this does not constitute invention, then it is difficult to understand in what invention consists.
This court quite a.grees with the expression of the Supreme Court of the United States in Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, 11 Sup. Ct. 20, 34 L. Ed. 574, where it said, “The bringing together of old fixtures already patented, and using them in the same article, does not of itself constitute a patentable combination.” The complainant in this case has seen the old fixtures, evidently, and, having discovered their defects or imperfections, has gone to work, and, by invention and inventive skill and new arrangements and new means, constructed a thill coupling with a new packing, which has accomplished the result the others sought to attain, but failed in doing. This is a substantial discovery and a substantial invention, and adds to our knowledge, and marks a step in advance in the useful arts. This is not a trifling device, or the shade of an idea that would naturally and spontaneously occur to the skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufacture. The various patents heretofore granted and put in evidence show that many others have struggled unsuccessfully with the problem which the complainant in this case has solved. The complainant in this case has solved the problem without appropriating the device or invention of the others, although he has undoubtedly profited largely from their efforts. The evidence is ample and conclusive that the defendant has infringed and is infringing, and threatens to continue such infringement.
The result is that the complainant is entitled to the relief which he demands, and a decree will be entered accordingly.