Opinion of the Court.

much of the patent itself, with a right to sue infringers: in the second case, jointly with the assignor; in the first and third cases, in the name of the assignee alone. Any assignment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement."

We see no reason to qualify in any way the language of these opinions. While it is sometimes said that each claim of a patent is a separate patent, it is true only to a limited extent. Doubtless separate defences may be interposed to different claims, and some may be held to be good and others bad, but it might lead to very great confusion to permit a patentee to split up his title within the same territory into as many different parts as there are claims. If he could do this, his assignees would have the same right they now have to assign the title to certain territory, and the legal title to the patent might thus be distributed among a hundred persons at the same time. Such a division of the legal title would also be provocative of litigation among the assignees themselves as to the exact boundaries of their respective titles. We think the so-called assignment to Kirkpatrick was a mere license, and did not vest in him or his assigns the legal title to the second claim nor the right to sue in his own name upon it.

This disposition of the assignment renders it unnecessary to discuss the validity of the patent.

(2) Patent No. 314,142, to Thomas J. Kirkpatrick, issued March 17, 1885, contains four claims, the first one of which is relied upon to sustain this bill. This claim is as follows:

"1. The combination, with the perch or backbone of a bicycle or similar vehicle, of independent front and rear springs secured to said perch or backbone, and a flexible seat suspended directly from said springs at the front and rear, respectively, substantially as set forth.”

"My invention," says the patentee in his specification, "consists in a peculiar arrangement of front and rear springs secured independently to the reach or backbone' of the machine in connection with the flexible seat suspended at the front and rear from said springs. These springs, D

Opinion of the Court.

and E, are secured independently to the perch or backbone A, each spring being preferably secured as nearly as practicable under the end of the saddle to which said spring is attached. In order to extend the suspended flexible seat as far forward as possible, and at the same time secure the full elasticity of the forward spring D, I construct the said spring with two wings, b1 72, adapted to extend forward of the head B, and turn upward and backward to connect with the forward end of the seat C."

If this claim be extended, as is insisted by the appellant, to include every device by which a flexible seat is suspended upon the perch or backbone of a bicycle by independent springs at the front and rear ends of such seat, it is anticipated by several patents put in evidence by the defendants. Thus in the Fowler patent of 1880, a saddle seat is shown to be suspended above the perch or backbone upon a coil spring in front and with a grooved leaf spring in the rear, these springs being entirely independent of each other. In the Fowler patent of 1881 there is exhibited a saddle seat suspended from the backbone by independent front and rear springs, though there may be some doubt whether the seat in either of these cases is flexible. There is no doubt, however, that in the Veeder patent of 1882 there is a flexible saddle seat carried upon the perch or backbone of a bicycle, and resting upon two parts of the same spring, which, however, cannot be said to be entirely independent of each other. Evidently, however, the feature of flexibility cuts no figure in this case, since it would manifestly require no invention to adapt the Fowler saddles to a flexible seat.

In view of these patents, the Kirkpatrick patent cannot be sustained for the combination indicated without the qualification, "substantially as set forth," at the end of the claim, which limits it to a forward spring adapted to extend forward of the head and turn upward and backward to connect with the forward end of the seat; the effect of this being to throw the seat as far forward as possible, and to render unnecessary any intervening mechanism or device between the forward end of the saddle and the perch.

Statement of the Case.

Limited in this way, it is clear the defendants do not infringe, making use, as they do, of springs, which are not only quite different from the Kirkpatrick springs in their design, but omit the important particular of projecting in front of the steering post.

There was no error in the action of the court below, and its decree is, therefore,

Affirmed.

POPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. GORMULLY & JEFFERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY. (No. 4.)

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 208. Argued March 10, 11, 1892. Decided April 4, 1892.

Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully, ante, 224, applied to this case so far as the claim for recovery based upon contract is concerned. Claims 2 and 3 in letters patent No. 249,278, issued November 8, 1881, to Albert E. Wallace for an axle bearing for vehicle wheels are void for want of novelty.

Claims 2 and 3 in letters patent No. 280,421, issued July 3, 1883, to Albert E. Wallace for an improvement upon the device covered by his patent of November 8, 1881, are also void for want of novelty.

THIS was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 249,278, issued November 8, 1881, to Albert E. Wallace, for an axle bearing for vehicle wheels; and patent No. 280,421, issued July 3, 1883, to the same person and for a similar device. In addition to the usual allegations of the bill for an infringement, it was alleged that the defendants were bound by certain covenants in the contract of December 1, 1884, entered into with the plaintiff, in which they acknowledged the validity of these patents, and agreed not to manufacture ball bearings such as described and shown, and made the subject matter of its claim, and that they are, therefore, estopped to deny the validity of such patents; and that it was also stipulated in said agreement that the devices such as were being made by the defendant were contained in said

Opinion of the Court.

patents, and covered by the claims thereof, whereby the defendants were estopped to deny infringement.

The court below held that the defendants were not estopped by this contract; that the patents were invalid; and that, if valid, they were not infringed; and dismissed the bill, from which decree the plaintiff appealed to this court. 34 Fed. Rep. 896.

Mr. Lewis L. Coburn and Mr. Edmund Wetmore for appellant.

Mr. Charles K. Offield for appellees. Mr. W. C. Goudy I was with him on the brief.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.

As we have already held, in the case between the plaintiff and defendant Gormully, No. 204, that the contract of December 1, 1884, did not operate to estop the defendants from contesting the validity of these patents, it is not necessary to consider this case any farther so far as the claim for recovery based upon this contract is concerned. The case must be tried as an ordinary suit in equity for the infringement of a patent.

(1) Patent No. 249,278, to Albert E. Wallace, is for an improvement in axle bearings for vehicle wheels. The object of the invention seems to have been the construction of a ball bearing in two parts in such manner as to admit of the wear of the balls being taken up gradually, as the wear progresses, in order to keep the bearings tight. In reference to this he says in his specification:

"Heretofore many anti-friction bearings have been made and described, including various forms of ball bearings, and the latter class have been constructed so as to be adjustable for wear by having the bearing-box made in two or more parts, and so that they may be made to approach each other to tighten the bearings. In respect to bearings for light wheels, particularly for bicycles, it is desirable to make the

Opinion of the Court.

parts as light and snug and of as little material as possible, consistently with strength. To make them true—that is, so that the balls shall be perfect spheres and of even diameter, and that the bearing surfaces in which they revolve shall be of even distance apart, and of even curvature and shape, and shall be kept so, and that in putting together and adjusting the bearing parts shall be made to approach each other with perfect evenness. It is also desirable to make the parts and their joints as few as possible, so that the structure composed of them when put together and in operation shall not be liable to displacement, breakage or accident.

"It is the object of my improvement to secure these desirable qualities in an adjustable anti-friction ball-bearing, and to obviate the difficulties and imperfections existing in previous attempts in this direction."

The second and third claims only are alleged to have been infringed. They are as follows:

"2. The described anti-friction bearing for a wheel and axle, consisting of a one-part bearing-box and a two-part sleeve, having a circular row of balls within said box and between bearing surfaces in the box and on either part of the sleeve, and adapted for adjustment for wear and securement in position on an axle by a screw-thread at the outer end of one part of the sleeve, operating to draw it toward and from the other part, substantially as set forth.

"3. The described anti-friction bearing for a wheel and axle, consisting of a two-part collar or sleeve adapted to inclose the axle, a one-part bearing-box inclosing said sleeve and containing a recess with bearing surfaces, between which and a bearing surface on either part the said sleeve is held, a circular row of balls combined and constructed essentially as shown and described, for securement in position and adjustment for wear by the pressure of one part of the sleeve against the hub of the wheel, and by an external thread on the other part of the sleeve operating in an internal thread in a boss secured to the axle on the opposite side, substantially as set forth."

In reference to the adjustability of his device he says that "it is obvious that this bearing will be readily adjustable to