PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

29. HARTSHORN-SHADE-FIXTURES.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 2,756, granted
August 27, 1867, to Stewart Hartshorn, for an improvement in shade-fixtures
(a reissue of Patent No. 44,624, dated October 11, 1864), declared void on ac-
count of failure to make application to amend within the required time.
Hartshorn v. Almy, 8 O. G., 89; and Hartshorn v. Tripp et al., 120 Blatchf.,
reversed. * Hartshorn v. Eagle Shade Roller Company et al., 470.

30. HOFFHEINS-HARVESTERS.-Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19 of Reissue Let-
ters Patent No. 2,224, granted April 10, 1866, to Reuben Hoff heins, for an im-
provement in harvesters, the original patent (No. 35,315) having been granted
to him May 20, 1862, and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 of Reissue Letters Patent No.
2,490, granted February 19, 1867, to Reuben Hoff heins, for an improvement
in harvesters, the original patent (No. 40,481) having been granted to him
November 3, 1863, and reissued in two divisions, one (No. 1,888) February 28,
1865, and the other (No. 2,102) November 7, 1865, and No. 2,490 having been
issued on the surrender of No. 2, 102, considered. *Hoff heins v. Russell et al., 278.
31. THE DIFFerence BetwEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE DRAWINGS OF NO.
35,315 (THE Original) and those of No. 2,224 (THE REISSUE) POINTED
OUT-NEW MATTER.-There is no warrant in No. 35,315 for locating the rake-
support, or any part of it, on the finger-beam, and, as each of the above-
named claims of No. 2,224 has as an element either a rake or a rake and reel
mounted on or attached to the cutting apparatus or the finger-beam, No.
35,315 could not lawfully be reissued with those claims. "Id.
32. THE DIFFERENCE BETween the RAKING APPARATUS AND Rake-Support of No.
2,224 AND those of the Defendants Pointed Out.—The defendants de-
vised a new arrangement of rake, which made it possible for them to mount
their rake-support on the heel of the finger-beam, where the rake-support of
No. 2,224 could not be mounted. The difference between the yielding belt-
tightener of No. 2,224 and the defendants' arrangement for driving the raking
apparatus pointed out, and the latter held not to be a mechanical equivalent
for the former. *Id.

33. SAME

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RAKing Mechanism OR RAKE-POST
OF NO. 2,490 AND THAT OF THE DEFENDANTS POINTED OUT.-The raking
apparatus is an element in claims 2, 7, aud 9 of No. 2,490; and, in view of the
differences between the two machines in the construction of the raking mech-
anism and the arrangement and location of the rake-post, the rake of claims
2, 7, and 9 is to be construed to be such a rake, and one so arranged on a
rake-post so mounted, as is shown and described in the specification, and thus
does not include the defendants' raking mechanism or rake-post. *Id.
34. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DRIVING DEVICE OF No. 2,490 and thAT
of the Defendants PointeD OUT.—The driving device in claims 6 and 7
of No. 2,490 held not to include the defendants' driving device, the former be-
ing an extensible tumbling shaft and the latter a chain-belt with open links,
and patentability or invention inhering only in the device and not in its lo-
cation. Id.

35. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PATENT (No. 40,481) AND ITS RE-
ISSUE (NO. 2,490) POINTED Out-New MATTER.-No. 40,481 negatives the
idea of mounting the rake-post on the finger-beam, while an element in claim
1 of No, 2,490 is the mounting of the raking mechanism on the finger-beam.
In No. 2,490 a driver's seat mounted on the main frame, so as to enable the
driver to ride on the machine while the rake is in operation, is an element in
claims 1 and 9, while the driver's seat in No. 40,481 is not and cannot be in
such a position that the driver can ride on the seat while the rake is in op-
eration. *ld.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

36. NO INFRINGEMENT.-No cause of action is established against the defendants
on either of the patents sued on.
* Id.

37. HOLLINGSWORTH'S HORSE-RAKE.-First claim of Letters Patent No. 65,573
granted June 11, 1867, to J. Hollingsworth, for an improvement in horse-rakes,
Held auticipated by Hollingsworth's prior patent of February 2, 1864, No.
41,433. "Dodds v. Stoddard et al.,

382.

38. HOTCHKISS-CLOCK-MOVEMENTS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 10,062, granted
March 14, 1882, to Arthur E. Hotchkiss, for an improvement in clock move-
ments, is invalid under the statute regulating reissues. A bill in equity to
restrain its infringement was accordingly dismissed. Parker & Whipple Com-
pany et al. v. Yale Clock Company et al., 421.

39. HUTCHINS-HYDROCARBON-STOVES.-Letters Patent No. 177,334, granted to
Abner B. Hutchins, May 16, 1876, for an improvement in hydrocarbon-stoves,
examined. The court declined to consider whether the invention was suffi-
ciently described in a prior Canadian patent or whether the invention had
been in public use for more than two years prior to filing the application, it
appearing that the defendant's structure did not infringe the claim of the
patent. Sharp v. Riessner et al., 244.

40. HYDE-COMBINED WATER-Wheels and Sewing-MACHINES.-In Reissue Let-
ters Patent No. 5,590, granted October 7, 1873, to Isaac Hyde, assignor to O.
J. Backus, for an improvement in combined water-wheels and sewing-ma-
chines, claim 6, for "a vertically-revolving water-wheel in combination with
an inclosing-case which has a spent-water pocket, D', to prevent the spent
water from acting on the wheel," is of doubtful patentability, and is antici-
pated by earlier devices in evidence, particularly that described in the Eng-
lish provisional specification of James Pilbrow, dated in 1857. * Backus Water
Motor Company v. Tuerk et al., 393.

41. JACKSON-VEHICLE RUNNING-GEAR.-Letters Patent No. 180,886, granted Au-
gust 8, 1876, to Moses T. Jackson, for an improvement in vehicle running-
gear, sustained, and Held to be infringed by a structure the bottom spring.
gearing of which is attached to the rear axle at a point nearer to the center
than "close to the shoulder "-the point of attachment described in the speci-
fication. Grier v. Castle, 404.

42. JUDSON-Corset-Springs.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,729, granted June 12,
1877, to C. Judson, for an improvement in corset-springs, construed and sec-
ond claim limited. Hardy et al. v. Marble, 155.

43. LEMMAN-Guide for BAND-SAWS.-The claim of Letters Patent No. 78,800,
granted to J. A. Fay & Co., June 16, 1868, for an improvement in guides for
band-saws, on the invention of John Lemman-namely, "The combination
of the roller b with fixed lateral guides c o c, one or more, arranged and oper-
ated substantially in the manner and for the purposes specified”—is for the
combination of an anti-friction smooth-faced wheel to support the back or
thin edge of the saw, and to have lateral adjustment, presenting different
points to wear, with the fixed guides, and is not infringed by an arrangement
in which the wheel has two grooves in it, in one of which the saw runs, and
in the other of which it can be made to run by lateral adjustment. *J. A.
Fay & Company v. Cordesman Brothers et al., 474.

44. MANNING-ISINGLASS FROM FISH-SOUNDS.-Letters patent for an improvement
in the manufacture of isinglass from fish-sounds, issued to the assignees of
the inventor, James Manning, January 7, 1873, declared invalid by reason of
a public use of the invention for more than two years before the patent was.
applied for. Manning et al., Cape Ann Isinglass and Glue Company et al., 306

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

45. MARGOT'S DESIGN FOR WATCH-CASE-DOUBT AS TO NOVELTY-INJUNCTION,
NISI.-Validity of Design Patent No. 12,775, granted February 21, 1882, to
Eugene F. Margot for a design for a watch-case, doubted for want of novelty.
Injunction nisi granted. Margot v. Schnetzer et al., 318.

46. MATTHEWS-Soda-WATER FOUNTAIN.-Reissue Letters Patent 9,028 granted to
John Matthews January 6, 1880, for an improvement in soda-water fountains,
examined and sustained as to the fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth claims, held
not infringed as to the first claim, and void as to the fifth and seventh. *Mat-
thews v. Spangenberg et al., 123.

47. MCCLOSKEY'S SOFT-METAL TRAPS.-Letters Patent No. 220,767, granted to John
McCloskey, October 21, 1879, for an improvement in soft-metal traps, de-
clared invalid. McCloskey v. Hamill, 297.

48. FORMER DECISIONS AFFIRMED.-Decisions of the court in McCloskey v. Du Bois
et al. (19 O. G., 1286) and McCloskey v. Du Bois (20 O. G., 1086) affirmed.
*Id.
49. MERRILL-Knitting-MACHINES.- Letters Patent No. 140,635, granted July 8
1873, to George Merrill, for an improvement in knitting-machines, construed
and limited. New York Belting and Packing Company et al. v. Sibley, 227.
50. MILES-BAIL-EARS.-The first claim of Letters Patent No. 147,343, granted Feb-
ruary 10, 1874, to the Double-Pointed Tack Company, as assignees of Purches
Miles, the inventor for an improvement in bail-ears-namely, "1. The com-
pound staple-fastening d for bails made with the diagonally-cut penetrating
points 2 and 3, loop 4, and body 5, said diagonally-cut points being posi-
tioned as set forth, so as to bend upwardly in driving into the wood, as set
forth"-does not, in view of what existed before in the art, set forth any pat-.
entable invention. "Double Pointed Tack Company v. Two Rivers Manufacturing
Company et al., 458.

51. SAME-NON PATENTABILITY-MECHANICAL SKILL.-It was commonly known
that the effect of a diagonal cut on a penetrating point was to force the
point, in being driven, in a direction away from the cut. Double-pointed
staples, with a diagonal cut on each point, but the diagonal cut on one point
on the upper and outer side, and on the other point on the lower and
outer side, as the staple was driven, were old, the effect in driving being
to bring the points together; and there was nothing more than mechanical
skill in putting the diagonal cuts on the same side of each leg, so as to in-
cline both points in driving in the same direction. *Id.

52. SAME

"Id.

SECOND CLAIM Declared Void-AggreGATION.-The second claim of
the patent-namely, "2. The convex metallic washer e, in combination with
the compound bail-fastening staple d, having upwardly-penetrating points
2 3 and loop 4, as and for the purposes specified "-does not set forth a pat-
entable combination, but only an aggregation of parts. Neither the staple
nor the washer affects or modifies the action of the other.
53. OWENS-STARCH-TRAY.-Patent No. 78,320, May 26, 1868, improvement in
starch-trays, granted to John A. Owens, and Reissue No. 9,732, May 31, 1881,
improvement in manufacture of starch, to said Owens, assignor to Thomas
A. and William T. Jebb, held to be devoid of patentable invention, and
therefore invalid. "New York Grape Sugar Company v. Buffalo Grape Sugar
Company et al., 460.

54. Parker-FLY-TRAPS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,811, granted to John
Parker, December 21, 1875, for an improvement in fly-traps, examined and
held to be invalid. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,493, granted to James M.
Harper, June 22, 1875, for an improvement in fly-traps, construed and held
not to be infringed by the defendant's structure. *National Manufacturing
Company et al., v. Meyers, 223.

PARTICULAR PATENTS—Continued.

55. Parson's Soap Patent CoNSTRUED.-Letters Patent No. 56,259, granted July
10, 1866, to C. C. Parsons for an improvement in the manufacture of soap
construed and limited. "Parsons v. Colgate et al., 319.

56. SAME-NOT ANTICIPATED.-Not anticipated by English patents of Maria Bonn-
sall Rowland, May 19, 1857, John Henry Johnson, October 30, 1863, or Morean
and Ragan, August 6, 1862. *Id.

57. PLIMPTON-SKATES.-Letters Patent No. 55,901, granted June 26, 1866, to James
L. Plimpton, for improvement in skates, declared void. "Plimpton v. Winslow,
260.

58. PUBLIC USE OR SALE.—Where skates containing an improvement on an earlier
patent held by the same inventor were in use or were offered for sale by the
same inventor, whether actually sold or not, more than two years before his
application for his second or subordinate patent, the latter is void. *Id.
59. RICHARDS-GUIDE AND SUPPORT FOR SCROLL-SAW8.-Claim 4 of Reissue Letters
Patent No. 1,527, granted to John Richards, August 25, 1863, for a guide and
support for scroll-saws, the original patent, No. 35,390, having been granted
to him May 25, 1862, for an improved guide and support for scroll-saws—
namely, "4. An anti-friction guide which is adjustable, so as to accommodate
different thicknesses of saw-blades, and to compensate for wear, in combina-
tion with the upper portion of a web saw-blade, substantially as set forth ❞—
does not cover an arrangement in which a band saw is used, passing over
wheels and running constantly in one direction toward the table on which
the stuff lies, and having a tension over the peripheries of the wheels. *J. A.
Fay & Company v. Cordesman Brothers et al., 474.

60. SAME-CLAIM 5 CONSTRUED.-Claim 5 of said reissue-namely, "5. The com-
bination of the anti-friction saw-support and guide, or the equivalent thereof,
with an adjustable guard, or its equivalent, substantially as and for the pur-
pose set forth"-is not infringed by an arrangement in which such a band-
saw is used, and the guard does not hold down the stuff against the upward
lifting action of the saw, because the saw is constantly passing downward.
*Id.

61. RICHARDSON-Safety-VALVE.-Letters Patent No. 58,294, dated September 25,
1866, and No. 85,963, dated January 19, 1869, both issued to George W. Rich-
ardson for improvements in safety-valves, construed and limited. *Consoli-
dated Safety-Valve Co. v. Kunkle, 167.

62. LETTERS PATENT Nos. 58,294 AND 85,963 CONSTRUED.-The result of the judicial
constructions of the Richardson patents in former suits is to limit them to
the special devices therein shown for obtaining an old result. *Id.

63. LETTERS PATENT No. 58,294 CONSTRUED AND Limited-INFRINGEMENT.—The
first Richardson patent requires in specific terms that the space for the escape
of the steam between the flange and ring encircling the expanded valve-head
shall be of less area than the area of escape at the valve-seat, and, as this
peculiarity was not provided for in the defendant's valve and was not in-
tended to be a part of his mechanism, Held that there was no infringement.
*Id.

64. LETTERS PATENT No. 85,963 CONSTRUED AND LIMITED-INFRINGEMENT.-The
second Richardson patent construed and limited to the peculiar mechanism
by which the new outlet for the steam is provided, and, as the defendaut
did not employ the same method or devices, Held that there was no infringe-
'ment. *Id.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

65. Schaefer-SASH-SUPPORTERS.-Reissue Letters Patent 8,672 granted to Charles
A. Schaefer, April 15, 1879, for an improvement in sash-supporters, describ-
ing an arrangement of devices for preventing windows from rattling, and
claiming, inter alia, a cylindrical screw-case holding the plunger, which
presses against the side of the window-frame, is not infringed by a combina-
tion of devices forming a window-catch for holding up the window, and in-
cluding, among other things, the cylindrical screw-case, which, however, is
used for containing a different kind of plunger, to attain the different pur-
pose which is the object of the combination. The two articles as a whole
are unlike, and the objects for which the cylinders are used are unlike.
v. Babcock et al., 125.

#

Judd

66. SCHILLINGER'S CONCRETE PAVEMENTS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 4,364,
granted to J. J. Schillinger, May 2, 1871, for an improvement in concrete
pavements, construed and sustained in accordance with the decisions in Schil-
linger v. Gunther (11 O. G., 831; 14 O. G., 713; 16 O. G., 905). * Schillinger v.
Greenway Brewing Company, 341.

67. SIEMENS-REGENERATOR FURNACES.-The invention embraced in Letters Pat-
ent No. 41,788, granted March 1, 1864, to Charles William and Frederick
Siemens, for an improvement in regenerator furnaces, is substantially identi-
cal with the invention disclosed in the English letters patent granted to
them dated January 22, 1861, and sealed July 19, 1861. Siemens et al. v. Sellers
et al., 298.

68. THE CASE OF DE FLOREZ V. REYNOLDS CITED AND APPROVED.-In the absence
of decisions by other courts, the court would have reached the conclusion
that the language of the act of 1861 was intended simply to increase the
duration of all patents thereafter issued, giving to each an additional period
of three years. The question, however, having been fully considered in De
Florez v. Reynolds (17 Blatchf., 436), the court adopts the views set forth in
that case. *Id.

69. CONFLICTING DECISIONS.-In Weston v. White (13 Blatchf., 364) the question
was decided in the same way as in De Florez v. Reynolds. Its decision, how-
ever, was not actually necessary, and was made without discussion. In Goff
v. Stafford (14 O. G., 748) Mr. Justice Clifford held otherwise. * Id.
70. SINGER ROCKING-CHAIR.-Letters Patent No. 92,379, granted July 6, 1869, to
Charles Singer, for an improvement in rocking-chairs, construed and the first
claim held to be invalid, it not covering a patentable invention. *Singer Rock-
ing Chair Company v. Tobey Furniture Company, 127.

71. SLAWSON AND WINCHELL FARE-BOX PATENTS DECLARED VOID.-Reissue Let-
ters Patent No. 4,240, granted to John B. Slawson, January 24, 1871, and Let-
ters Patent No. 121,920, granted December 12, 1871, upon the application of
James F. Winchell to Elijah C. Middleton, for improvement in fare-boxes,
declared void, as the contrivances therein did not involve invention. Slaw-
son v. The Grand Street, Prospect Park and Flatbush Railroad Company, 313.
72. SLAWSON'S PATENT-NON-INVENTION.-Slawson's patent shows that the inven-
tion described therein consisted simply in the placing in the ordinary fare-box
used on street-cars and omnibuses of a glass panel opposite to the glass panel
next the driver usually inserted in such boxes, so that the passengers could
see the interior of the box. Such a contrivance did not embody or require in-
vention. *Id.

73. SMITH-MACHINE FOR MAKING LACING-HOOKS FOR SHOES.-Letters Patent
No. 259,597, granted to Stephen N. Smith, June 13, 1882, for an improvement
in machines for making lacing-hooks for shoes, construed and held not to be
anticipated by Letters Patent No. 102,195, granted April 19, 1870, to S. W.
Young, or by Reissue Letters Patent No. 9,837, to Lauriston Towne, August
9, 1881. Smith v. Halkyard et al., 264.