Sprull v. North Carolina Ins. Co.. 34

Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 290 Stanley Works v. Sargent....

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

Circuit Courts of the United States

WITHIN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

SAMUEL G. MONCE AND ROLLIN J. IVES

vs.

BENJAMIN F. ADAMS. IN EQUITY.

The invention covered by the letters patent granted to Samuel G. Monce, June 8th, 1869, for an "improved tool for cutting glass," the claims of which are, "1. The cutter, A, constructed substantially as shown and described, and for the purposes set forth; 2. The combination of the cutter, A, frame, B, and handle, C, substantially as and for the purposes described," consists, so far as the revolving steel cutter is concerned, in the fact that its sides are made parallel and then bevelled towards each other at an angle of about 45° to the axis of the cutter, so as to meet about midway between the same, in a cutting edge, and to be at right angles to each other.

The value of a diamond, for cutting glass, depends not merely on its hardness, but on the fact that its surfaces are curved, the meeting of any two of them presenting a curvilinear edge, and that the diamond is so placed that the line of the intended cut is a tangent to this edge, near to its extremity, and that the two surfaces of the diamond laterally adjacent are equally inclined to the surface of the glass, and the cutting edges are at right angles to each other.

The conditions necessary to form a glazier's diamond are found in the invention of the patent.

Monce v. Adams.

The cutter of the patent was not anticipated by a cutter for cutting glass, made of hardened steel, which made a cut at an angle of 45° to the surface of the glass, the cutter of the patent making the cut at a right angle to such surface. The cutter of the patent was the first successful substitute for the glazier's diamond.

The specification of the patent is not ambiguous, in saying, merely, that the cutter is to be "hardened," and in not saying what degree of hardness is to be given to it.

(Before SHIPMAN, J., Connecticut, April 17th, 1874.)

SHIPMAN, J. The complainants are the owners of a patent. for an alleged new and useful "improved tool for cutting glass," and have brought their bill against the defendant, alleging an infringement by the latter, and praying for an injunction and an account. The patent was granted to Samuel G. Monce, one of the complainants, on the 8th of June, 1869. The defence contained in the answer, and chiefly relied upon, is a denial that said Monce was the first inventor of the patented article. It is also alleged, that the description of the invention set forth in the specification is incomplete and ambiguous.

The patented article was designed to be an economical and effective substitute for a glazier's diamond, in the cutting of glass. The alleged invention is thus described in the specification: "My invention consists in the use or employment. of a revolving steel. roller, the periphery of which roller is bevelled on both sides, so as to form a cutting edge, and is fitted to revolve in a suitable frame, and attached to a handle for operating the same. The cutter is made from steel, and is turned smooth and round, and afterwards hardened. The sides are parallel, or nearly so, for a short distance, and then bevelled towards each other, so as to meet about midway between the same, thus forming the point or cutting edge. The bevelled portion of the sides should be at an angle of about forty-five degrees to the axis of the cutter, and, consequently, will be at near right angles to each other. It is not necessary that the angles of the bevelled sides should be at exactly right angles to each other, but, near that angle, or a very little