tute the weight of the pawl, sliding in inclined slots, grooves, or guides, for the elastic spring usually employed to press it against the teeth of the ratchet-bar; and, second, to obtain greater strength by dividing the load among several teeth of the pawl and ratchet-bar, instead of supporting it all on one tooth, as is commonly done. Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings is a vertical section of so much of a jack as is necessary to show my improvements; and Fig. 2 is a modification of the same, in which the pins and slots of Fig. 1 are exchanged for the tongue and groove in Fig. 2.

Referring to Fig. 1, A is the pawl, having teeth that engage with the teeth of the ratchet-bar B. DD' are slots in the frame of the jack, inclined to the axis of the ratchet-bar ut the angle of about forty-five degrees, in which slots move the pins C C' of the pawl A.

The operation is seen at a glance. When the ratchet-bar is raised its teeth crowd or slide the pawl up the inclined slots out of the way, so as to allow it to pass, until it has traveled the length of a tooth, when the weight of the pawl causes it to fall back into the next tooth below, ready to hold the ratchet-bar at the point gained, ready for another lift, and so on.

In Fig. 2, instead of slots D D', there is a tongue, D, on each side of the pawl with corresponding grooves in the frame of the jack in which the said tongues move; or the tongues may be on the frame with the grooves in the pawl, the tongues and grooves performing the same office that the pins and slots do in the form of construetion shown in Fig. 1.

Other modifications involving the same principle of operation may be possible, but I prefer the construction represented in Fig. 1, at the same time not limiting myself strictly to that, but claiming any equivalent arrangement by which the same objects are accomplished in substantially the same manner.

1. A pawl for lever-jack with two or more teeth, and adapted to move in inclined slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame, substantially as described.

2. The combination of the pawl A with its pins C C', slots D D', and ratchet-bar B, substantially as described.

Each defendant put in a separate answer, alleging want of novelty and setting forth sundry prior patents in which, it was averred, the invention was contained, and also giving the names of sundry prior inventors. Each answer denied infringement. The answer of the company averred that it had made for its co-defendant parts of lifting-jacks in accordance with letters patent of the United States granted to Samuel Mosler, No. 168,663, dated October 11, 1875; No. 172,471, dated January 18, 1876, and No. 194,711, dated August 28, 1877. Issue was joined and proofs were taken on both sides, and the circuit court dismissed the bill, with costs. Its decision is reported in 15 Fed. Rep., 260.

In the opinion of the circuit court it is said:

The specification describes, and the drawings show, a frame with parallel sides, between which a pawl moves in parallel slots in the frame, forming guideways inclined toward the vertically-moving ratchet-bar. The pawl is provided with a series of teeth on the face adjacent to the ratchet-bar and at opposite sides with projections or lugs engaging in the inclined slots of the frame. The guide-slots are inclined at an angle of forty-five degrees or thereabouts, and the pawl is actuated ́solely by gravity to move down the inclines and engage its teeth with those of the ratchet-bar; and the patentee states in his specification, as one of the objects of the invention, his purpose to utilize the gravity of the pawl itself, thus arranged, as a substitute for a spring.

The clear statement of the specification in this respect is that the first object of the invention is

to substitute the weight of the pawl, sliding in inclined slots, grooves, or guides, for the elastic spring usually employed to press it against the teeth of the ratchetbar.

The specification also says that

when the ratchet-bar is raised its teeth crowd or slide the pawl up the i lined slots out of the way, so as to allow it to pass, until it has traveled the length of a tooth, when the weight of the pawl causes it to fall back into the next tooth below, ready to hold the ratchet-bar at the point gained, ready for another lift, and so on.

These are plain statements that the weight of the pawl, unaided by any spring, is to be used to cause the pawl to fall back into the next tooth below, after the ratchet-bar has traveled the length of a tooth, such weight of the pawl being employed to press it against the teeth of the ratchet bar in place of the use of an elastic spring for that purpose. The inclined slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame in which the pawl moves are the slots D D', made in the frame of the jack, and "inclined to the axis of the ratchet-bar at the angle of about forty-five degrees," in which slots the pins C C' of the pawl move. The specification states that, instead of such slots in the frame of the jack, there may be grooves in such frame, one on each side of the pawl, in which a tongue on each side of the pawl moves; or there may be tongues on the frame and grooves in the pawl, the tongues and grooves performing the same office that the pins and slots do in the first form of construction.

In the opinion of the circuit court the following statement is made as to the defendants' jack, which we deem to be correct:

The defendants manufacture a jack having a many-toothed pawl resting at its bottom upon a seat slightly inclined toward the rack-bar and actuated by a spring placed behind it within the frame. The inclination of the seat is not sufficient to actuate the pawl by gravity, nor are there any slots or other means of guiding the pawl in the sides of the frame, the function of the inclined seat being rather to assist the spring in preventing a backward slip of the pawl when under pressure than to facilitate the forward movement of the pawl, although to the latter result it may contribute in a slight degree.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants use their spring to start the movement of the pawl upon an incline having a less angle than that mentioned in the specification of the patent and employ an inclined seat for the pawl to effect the holding of the load, and that they thus infringe the first claim of the patent. But we are of opinion, upon the whole evidence, that in the defendants' jack the spring is used to press the pawl against the teeth of the ratchet-bar, within the meaning of the specification of the patent; that the jack made by the defendants would not be and is not, as constructed by them and put upon the market, a practically operative instrument without the use of the spring; that the pawl in it will not operate by gravity alone so as to make it an efficient or safe machine, and that there are no slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame to guide the pawl in the sense of the first claim of the plaintiff's patent.

We concur with the court below in holding that the first claim of the patent must be limited to a pawl moving by gravity alone in inclined slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame, and that therefore there has been no infringement of the first claim. It is not alleged that the second claim has been infringed.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

The claim of Letters Patent No. 249,332, to F. J. Geis, dated November 8, 1881, "for a new and improved mixture or grist for brewing purposes," Held to be for a "composition of matter," and not infringed by anything done in the process of brewing, and not infringed by defendant.

2. INFRINGEMENT.

The claim being for a composition of matter or dry mixture, Held not infringed by the sale of one of the materials forming part of the mixture, the use of both materials forming the mixture being old in the art.

3. WANT OF INVENTION.

It is difficult to find invention in mixing or putting together in a dry state two materials, it being old to mix the same materials during the process of manufacturing or brewing.

IN THE Circuit Court of the United States in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. George E. Buckley and Mr. Edward M. Hunt for the complainant. Mr. Rowland Cox for the defendant.

BUTLER, J.:

The suit is for infringement of Letters Patent No. 249,332, issued to Francis J. Geis for a new and improved mixture or grist for brewing purposes, dated November 8, 1881. The patent contains a single claim, which reads as follows:

A mixture or grist for brewing malt liquors, composed of malt and cereals or grain having the cellulose or integument and germ or heart removed, the cereal or grain constituting from about twenty-five to fifty per centum, by weight, of the said mixture or grist, substantially as herein specified.

To determine the scope of this claim, it is necessary to understand and consider the circumstances under which the patent was granted. The original application, presented in December, 1880, was for "new and useful improvements in the process of brewing malt liquors." The alleged invention and its advantages were described, substantially, in most respects, as are set forth in thé specifications accompanying the patent. The claim sought to be secured read as follows:

The process of manufacturing malt liquors consisting in substituting for from twenty-five to fifty per centum of the weight of the malt usually employed, a corresponding weight of cereals or grain having the cellulose or integument and germ or heart removed, but containing gluten and albuminoids, substantially as and for the purpose specified.

After consideration by the Examiner the application was rejected. Making slight amendment, the applicant renewed it. It was again considered and rejected in the following words:

The use of cereals deprived of hull, kernel, and all nitrogenous and unfermentable matters in conjunction with malt to form beer is shown in the English patents to Johnson, 2,082 of 1871, and Newton, 2,360 of 1862, and the use of corn deprived of hull and kernel for the same purpose is pointed out in the United States patent to Hartshorn September 30, 1879, No. 220,023, and that to Furbish already cited.

After further amendment the application was again renewed, and was again rejected in the following terms:

It is old in the processes of manufacturing malt liquors to substitute for malt, in varying proportions, a corresponding weight of corn. (See, for instance, English Patent 94 of 1857 (mashing), and Distillation, Brewing, and Malting, San Francisco, 1867, p. 30.) The purpose of Hartshorn's inventon is to improve this old process by first removing from such grain the integument and germ. This seems to be the whole gist of applicant's invention, and, such being the case, it is deemed to be fully anticipated.

Further amending, the applicant again renewed and pressed his claim. It was again rejected in the following terms:

This application has been reconsidered as amended. The references of record show that it is old in the processes of manufacturing malt liquor to substitute, in varying

proportions, cereals for the malt usually employed. It is also shown to be old to use for the same purpose cereals having the "cellulose, hearts, and gerins" removed. Instead of treating cereals thus prepared, in the way preferred by Hartshorn, applicant merely adopts the older method followed in treating ordinary grain. To treat the grain as prepared by Hartshorn in the old way is not seen to require the exercise of invention. In other words, applicant has neither discovered that grain can be substitated for a portion of the malt in the ordinary brewing process nor that such grain with hulls and "heart" removed will better answer as such a substitute. The applicant is again and finally rejected.

These several decisions of the Examiner were, we believe, clearly right, not only for the reasons stated by him, but for others as well de. ducible from the proofs in this case. A brief review of the state of the art will show this and afford additional aid in construing the claim. Cereals-rice, wheat, and corn-had been used in combination with malt in manufacturing malt liquors for many years. These grains contain qualities adapted to such use, and, being cheaper than malt, had long been thus used. The hulls and germs contain objectionable matter which renders it important to exclude them. This was universally understood by the trade. "Commercial" rice is virtually, if not absolutely, free of them. Wheat and cornmeal are measurably so. The subject of using these grains and the importance of removing the hulls and germs are referred to in various publications, and also in numerous letters patent introduced into the case. The preparation of corn known as "hominy" contains less of these objectionable parts, probably, than any other preparation of that grain. It is not absolutely free. Necessarily a small part remains, even with the greatest care in preparation. Notwithstanding some reference is made to hominy in this connection in one or two publications, the importance of adopting it instead of cornmeal seems very generally to have been overlooked. There is evidence of its use, however, at St. Louis as early as 1876. The complainant (a practical and experienced brewer), believing "hominy" to be the cleanest and therefore the best preparation of corn for brewing purposes, commenced its use shortly before his application for a patent. He had discovered nothing new in the art of manufacturing malt liquors. He admits this virtually in the following statement taken from his application :

I am aware that a grist composed of malt and grain in its natural state is not new, and I am also aware that it has been proposed to remove from corn the hulls and germs

before applying it to this purpose. This statement, however, falls far short of the entire truth relating to the subject, as we have seen. He doubtless believed himself the first to discover the especial adaptability of "hominy" to brewing purposes. Others, however, knew as well as he that "hominy" is simply corn with the hulls and germs removed, and, knowing this, would necessarily as well understand its adaptability to this purpose. But he was mistaken even in the belief that he was 884 PAT- -29