more plies, as shown at a a a, and is made by inserting one closely-fitting vessel into another, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, or by coiling to form a volute, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The caps B B are made of deep caps, two, three or more in number, as shown at b b b. C is the bung-piece, with a broad flange on the inside. Between the cap and this flange are interposed a number of washers, d d d, so as to re-enforce the wall where it is weakened by openings. If openings are required in the side or other part of the vessel, they should be strengthened by washers, such as shown at d d d. Instead of a single coiled plate, the body may be made of several plates spirally coiled, so that one breaks joint with the other.

The plates are first tinned, and then put together, and afterward sweated together. and also the seams and spaces between the plates, so as to unite all in one solid piece. The vessels formed in this manner are not only very strong, but resist the passage of gases much better than those made in the ordinary way.

The method of forming the cup-shaped caps, the kinds of metal to be used for the plates, and the processes of preparing them for use, being already known, and forming no part of this invention, need not be described.

The following is the method of joining the seams which I use, and which is applicable to all kinds of vessels of iron and steel: I first galvanize or coat with zinc the whole of the sheet-steel intended for the jacket or shell or shells, and then, by means of a blow-pipe, melt tin upon the surface intended to form the joints. This tin alloys itself with the zinc, forming a very fusible alloy, which is carefully wiped off clean. The process is then repeated until little or no ziuc is left upon those portions intended to form the joints. These parts are afterward united by means of tin solder, and a very firm joint is formed. This process constitutes a part of my invention.

There are five claims, as follows:

1. The method herein described for forming strong vessels to contain gases and liquids under high pressure, consisting in coating a sheet of steel or other tough metal with tin or other soldering-metal, coiling into a volute or spiral, and then sweating the parts together, substantially as set forth.

2. The method of forming caps or ends for strong vessels consisting in sweating together a number of steel or other tough-metal caps coated with a soldering-metal, as set forth.

3. A lamellar vessel for containing liquids and gases under great pressure, having the several plies united by tin or soldering-metal, as described.

4. A lamellar cap or end for strong vessels, composed of a number of caps united by soldering-metal, as set forth.

5. The combination of the re-enforcing washers d with the end or body of the vessel, so as to re-enforce the parts weakened by apertures, as set forth.

It is very plain that the defendant's structure does not infringe any one of the first four claims of this patent. It is not a lamellar vessel, nor has it a lamellar cap or end in the sense of this patent. Its cap or end is not made by sweating together a number of caps coated with a soldering-metal. It has re-enforcing washers at the end where there is an aperture, but if claim 5 of the patent is not to be confined to re-enforcing washers applied to the end of such a lamellar vessel as the specification describes, the state of the art is shown to have been such that there was no invention in applying a re-enforcing washer to an aperture in a structure such as the defendant's at the time Matthews made his invention. Such a washer as the defendant uses existed substantially before Matthew's invention in the Gee structure of 1870, and in anal

ogous metal structures, such as generators for holding liquids under pressure. Aside from this the patent was not applied for till August 7, 1874, and the extensive use which Matthews made from February, 1871, to February, 1872, in his regular business of fountains with the aperture head re-enforced by washers, the washers being numbered by thousands, cannot be regarded as a use for experiment. The experiment might as well have continued till now to see if some one washer would not give way.

The specification of No. 179,583, referring to the drawing accompany. ing it, says:

Figure 1 shows a longitudinal section of my invention.

The improvement consists in forming the bung for the cock or plug of the fountain in such a manner that a recess for the soft-metal or other washer is obtained. It also consists in protecting the inner face of the metal bung.

In the drawing, a is the metallic bung; F, the fountain, case, or shell; b, nut to hold the bung in position; c, recess for washer; e, body of faucet; d, screw-thread stem of faucet; and g, the lining of the fountain.

Recesses in the top of the fountain-case have been long used, but may be more easily constructed by placing them in the bung, as shown, the bung being made of a separate piece of metal. The wasbers may also be more readily turned or trued. The first part of the invention, therefore, consists in forming a recess, o, in the top of the bung, so as to hold a washer between the bung and the screw-faucet stem.

The second part of the invention consists in carrying the lining of the fountain over the flange of the bung, so as to protect the inner end of the bung. It is usual to carry the lining between the bung and the fountain-case. This leaves the bung, which is usually of brass, exposed to the action of the beverage, which thereby becomes contaminated. By carrying the lining g over the internal face of the bung, and soldering it thereon, the bung is protected against all action from the aerated water or other beverage, and these are not liable to become contaminated.

This invention is applicable to all kinds of fountains or reservoirs in which a metallic bung is inserted with a draft-faucet.

There are two claims, as follows:

1. A metallic bung, provided with a recess, c, in combination with faucet e d, substantially as described.

2. In a fountain, a lining carried over the inner face of a metallic bung, and soldered thereto, substantially as shown, so as to protect the bung against corrosion, as set forth.

Two experts for the defendant testify that the defendant's structure, E, has no washer in the bung-casting, nor any recess that would receive and support such a washer, and does not contain the combination covered by claim 1, even when the cock or faucet is screwed into the bung of E. Nor does any expert for the plaintiff's testify that the defendant has any such washer in a recess or any such recess for a washer. Moreover, a washer so confined in a recess in a cock that it operated, when squeezed, to pack a joint, existed before, and it hardly amounted to a patentable invention to change the position of the recess from the cock to the bung, there being no other result than convenience.

As to claim 2 of No. 179,583, the specification is for "improvements in fountains for containing aerated beverages," and states that the in9373 PAT-29

vention covered by the two claims is "applicable to all kinds of fountains or reservoirs in which a metallic bung is inserted with a draft-faucet." Claim 2 is for a lining carried over the inner face of a metallic bung, and soldered to it, instead of being carried outside of the bung, so as to protect such inner face against corrosion. This claim is, broadly, for protecting a metallic bung by a lining of any material soldered to the inner face of such bung, so as to prevent access of the contents of the vessel to such inner face. In view of the state of the art as proved, there was nothing new or patentable in such a claim. The arrangement was an old one in generators, to protect the bung by carrying the lead lining over the inner face of the bung to keep the acid of the liquid from the brass of the bung. Whether the lining was soldered to the bung or not, there was no invention in making it permanent by soldering or by any other effective mode of attachment, in view of the state of the art of soldering.

It results from these considerations that, as to all the patents, the bill must be dismissed, with costs.

[United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.]

TUTTLE v. CLAFLIN ET AL.

Decided March 10, 1884.

29 O. G., 696.

CROSBY AND Kellogg--MACHINES FOR FRILLING AND RUFFLING.

Letters Patent No. 37,033, granted December 2, 1862, to C. O. Crosby and Henry Kellogg, for an improvement in machines for frilling and ruffling, construed, and the second and fourth claims held to be infringed by defendant's machines.

WALLACE, J.:

The complainant's patent (No. 37,033, Crosby and Kellogg patentees, granted December 2, 1862) for an improvement in frilling and crimping machines describes and claims devices which constitute distinct inventions residing in the same machine. The devices for forming and spacing the frill or crimp and those for securing them in place after it is formed accomplish distinct results, both of which are useful and either of which would support a patent. The devices also co-operate to make the stitched plait. The sewing mechanism is essential only for making the complete or stitched plait.

The claims of the patent cover all the devices in combination, and also the subcombinations which are operative only in forming and spacing the frills or plaits.

The first claim covers the crimping devices with and without the stitching mechanism. It is limited, however, by its terms to a combina.

tion in which the blade or crimper acts to space the crimps as well as to form them. The defendant's crimper does not act to space the crimps, and they do not therefore infringe this claim.

The second claim is as follows:

In combination, a crimper and a smoother substantially such as described, and acting substantially as specified, to fold the crimps to an edge.

The crimper described in the specification is a blade actuated by a cam and spring, and its mode of operation is to engage the cloth, ad. vance and make a crimp of the cloth lying between it and the holder, and shove the cloth along under the holder; it then retreats for another advance. While it moves forward to crimp it acts as a crimper. After the crimp is formed it acts as a spacer to space the crimps apart, and as a pusher to force the goods through the machine. The space between the crimps depends upon the length of advance of the crimper after the crimp is formed, which is determined and made adjustable by other mechanism. The crimper which is included in this claim is one which is to operate in combination with the other necessary co-operative parts, substantially in the manner just pointed out. It may operate effectively to fold the crimps to an edge without spacing them regularly, and in this regard may be an improvement upon the single or Arnold or Magic Ruffle Contrivance. In describing their invention the patentees state that the invention "consists, essentially, of two parts, the one for forming the crimps and the other for securing them in place after they are formed," and they then proceed to say that "the mechanism for forming the crimps consists of a crimper which both forms and spaces them." The specification plainly describes how the parts can operate to fold the crimps to an edge without spacing them. The language of the claim is apt and precise to cover such a combination, aud clearly distinguishes the functions of the operative parts from those assigned to the parts in the first claim.

While the defendants' machines do not employ a crimper which operates independently to space the crimps, their crimper and smoother effect the operation of folding the crimps to an edge, and their devices. in this behalf are the substantial equivalents of those in the combination described in the second claim. In their machines the spacing is done by revolving rolls or a holder, which after each crimp is formed advances the cloth while the blade is retreating through a distance equal to the space between the successive crimps.

The second claim and the fourth claim of the patent are infringed. The fifth claim is not infringed, as the defendants have no auxiliary smoother such as is described in the patent.

The decree is ordered for the complainant, adjudging infringement of the secoud and fourth claims of the patent.

[United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.]
SPILL V. THE CELLULOID MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Decided November 7, 1884.

29 0). G., 773.

A petition to file a supplemental bill introducing new evidence in a cause, after a decision therein, dismissed, because it failed to show that the petitioner could not with reasonable diligence have obtained prior to the former hearing the testimony which he seeks to adduce, and also because such new matter is immaterial.

Mr. H. M. Ruggles and Mr. E. M. Felt for the plaintiff.

Mr. F. H. Betts and Mr. E. L. Hamilton for the defendant.

BLATCHFORD, J.:

Since the announcement of the decision of the court in this case on the 21st of August, 1884 (21 Fed. Rep., 631), dismissing the bill of complaint, and befere the entering of any formal decree to that effect, the the plaintiff has made a motion for leave to file a supplemental bill of complaint in the nature of a bill of review. The motion is founded on a petition which purports to be the petition of the plaintiff by his solicitor, and is not signed or sworn to by the plaintiff or any agent or attorney in fact of his, but is signed and sworn to by the solicitor, and is supplemented by an affidavit made by the solicitor, stating that the reason why the petition was not signed and verified by the plaintiff was because the plaintiff is in Europe, and has been for several years last past, and for the further reason that the facts and statements set forth in the petition are within the knowledge of the solicitor.

The petition sets forth that since the decision of August 21, 1884, the petitioner has discovered new matter of consequence in the cause, particularly that John W. Hyatt, jr., and David Blake obtained Letters Patent of the United States No. 89,582, on the 4th of May, 1869, a printed copy of the specification of which is annexed to the petition; that the defendant as assignee of I. Smith Hyatt and John W. Hyatt (who is the same person who is called John W. Hyatt, jr., in No. 89,582), obtained Letters Patent of the United States No. 156,352 on the 27th of October, 1874, a printed copy of the specification of which is annexed to the petition; that it appears by No. 89,582 that in making compounds containing soluble gun-cotton the gun-cotton is dissolved" in a mixture of equal parts of alcohol and ether," thereby showing that alcohol alone is not a solvent of soluble gun-cotton; that it appeared by No. 156,352 that the object of the alleged invention "is to overcome certain objections which are involved in the use of liquid solvents as ordinarily employed in the munufacture of solidified collodion" or celluloid; that the specification says:

Heretofore liquid solvents have been used in dissolving pyroxyline by first preparing the solvent-for instance, ether and alcohol, nitro-benzone, &c.—and then saturating the pyroxyline with the solvents.