bleach or whiten xyloidine, I bleach it directly after the removal of the acids, and before removing it from the vat. This I do by any of the well-known means, preferring a solution of chlorine or a solution of chloride of lime or soda, which I add to the xyloidine, making use of alternate stirrings, and rest, for a sufficient time, until the xyloidine is whitened. The solution is again drained off, and the xyloidine is repeatedly washed with water in order to remove any excess of bleaching agents or any residue from such agents, when it will be found to be ready to be submitted to pressure in order to free the same from water, and may then be opened out so as to prepare it for drying, dissolving, or other purposes.' The second claim is in these words: The process of bleaching xyloidine in the manner herein specified.' That portion of the specification which precedes the statement of the second part of the invention relates to the treatment of vegetable fiber or lignine with acids, to convert it into xyloidine and render it soluble in suitable solvents. The fiber is intimately mixed with the acids by appropriate means, then the acids are strained and pressed from the fiber, which is now xyloidine, and it is subjected to a washing and stirring with water until it is nearly or quite free from acids, and the water is then drained off. The washing is done in a washing vat. The bleaching, as before stated, is done directly after the removal of the acids, and before the xyloidine is removed from the vat. The evidence shows that the real invention of the plaintiff, in this regard, was to bleach xyloidine by ordinary bleaching agents directly after the converting acids had been washed out of it, and before anything had been mixed with it which might interfere with the action of the bleaching agents. This is fairly the sense of the specification.

"Whether the bleaching is done in the washing vat or not, or in a solution of the ordinary bleaching agent, or by such agent not in a solution, are immaterial matters. The essential discovery was that an ordinary and wellknown bleaching agent, of the character of chlorine, or chloride of lime, or chloride of soda, if applied to xyloidine, when it had become such, and had been freed from the converting acids, and while it remained in that state, would act upon it to bleach it. The defendant treats paper with acids to make xyloidine, then washes out the acids, then grinds it, and, while it is being ground, applies bleaching powders to it. The evidence is satisfactory that one of such bleaching powders is permanganate of potash, and that it was a well-known and ordinary bleaching agent at the time of the plaintiff's invention. Therefore, infringement is established. It is contended for the defendant that the claim in regard to bleaching does not claim a patentable invention, because it is merely the use to bleach xyloidine of what had before been used to bleach fibrous material not converted into xyloidine. The true view is well expressed by Professor Seeley, the plaintiff's expert. The defendant's expert, Mr. Edward L. Renwick, had cited four English patentsthose to Martin, No. 7, of 1864; to Reeves, No. 2,797, of 1860; to Collyer, No. 550, of 1859; and to Reeves, No. 3,293, of 1866-as describing the treatment of vegetable fiber with a solution of chloride of line or of soda, substantially as the plaintiff's patent describes xyloidine as being treated with a solution of chloride of lime or of soda. Professor Seeley says: The patents referred to by Mr. Renwick cover inventions relating to bleaching, by means of ordinary bleaching agencies, the ordinary fibrous substances which are used for clothing, paper stock, etc. I do not find in them anything which has more bearing upon the novelty of Spill's invention than what might be included in the matter which Spill regards and defines as old and well known. Previous to Spill's time, the ordinary bleaching materials and methods were only applied to a peculiar class of substances; namely, those substances of fibrous character which were useful mainly by reason of that fibrous character. Spill's invention brings the utility of bleaching upon a new kind of material, and brings it where it was very desirable, but where it was sup

posed to be impracticable. It is true that pyroxyline (xyloidine) has a fibrous structure, but this fibrous structure is not any essential or useful property in it. In fact, in this art pyroxyline does not become useful until the fibrous structure is destroyed. Pyroxyline is not useful for any of the purposes to which the materials formerly bleached were applied. Pyroxyline is very different in chemical character and composition from the old bleachable materials. If pyroxyline had not the fibrous structure, probably the question of invention in this case would not have arisen, for then it would have appeared plainly that the case would have been similar to that of (suppose) bleaching charcoal by ordinary bleaching agents. In advance of experiments, the bleaching of a substance like pyroxyline would seem impracticable, almost incredible. The theory of ordinary bleaching is that the coloring matter of goods to be bleached is of a complicated and unstable character, and is destroyed by the powerful chemical action of the bleaching agents, chlorine, oxygen, etc. Inasmuch as pyroxyline, in its manufacture, has been exposed to the action of some of the most powerful chemical agents which are known, it is unreasonable to suppose that any of the unstable coloring matter could be left in it. The bleaching of pyroxyline has often been proposed and attempted; it was especially desirable in this art; but it is my opinion that a chemist would exhaust all other theories before he would think of ordinary bleaching agents for the purpose. The subject had come up in my mind several times before Spill's invention, and I was unwilling to credit the efficacy of his plans until they were actually demonstrated to me. I know of very few inventions where so novel and useful results have been obtained by such simple and unlooked-for methods.' There is no evidence to counteract this view."

The decision in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co. 110 U. S. 140, S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220, makes it impossible to sustain the view heretofore announced as to No. 101,175. The ruling in that case is that "the application of an old process or machine to a similar or analogous subject, with no change in the manner of application, and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not sustain a patent, even if the new form of result has not before been contemplated."

In the Martin patent-No. 7, of 1864--fabrics composed partly of vegetable and partly of animal material, and other fabrics and materials, designed to be used in making paper, are boiled with lime and soda or potash in a rotating boiler provided with heaters, and the cleaned rags are then bleached in the boiler by an "ordinary bleaching liquid, consisting of a solution of chloride of lime or soda, with a preparation of sulphuric acid."

In the Reeves patent-No. 2,797, of 1860-jute and other fibers of a similar nature, intended to be made into pulp for paper, are boiled in an alkali, then treated with chloride of soda or lime under heat, then immersed in a bath of chloride of lime of moderate strength, to which is added a small quantity of diluted sulphuric or hydrochloric acid, then boiled in a weak caustic alkaline solution, whereby a large quantity of coloring matter is extracted, then washed, and then treated in a solution of chloride of soda or lime, or both together, so that a perfect white will be the result.

In the Collyer patent, No. 550, of 1859, straw, flax, and other ma

terials, to be used in making paper, are boiled in caustic alkali, then washed, and then bleached in a chloride of lime solution.

In the Reeves and Muschamp patent-No. 3,293, of 1866-vegetable fibers or common rags, to be made into paper for explosive purposes, are boiled in caustic alkali and washed, and then a solution of chloride of lime is employed to disintegrate and bleach them, a small quantity of diluted sulphuric or other acid being added to the chloride of lime.

The validity of No. 101,175 was rested by the plaintiff at the original hearing, and is now rested, on this alone, as a claim of invention -that he discovered that xyloidine, or soluble gun-cotton, made by the use of substances so powerful as nitric and sulphuric acids, could be bleached by ordinary bleaching materials. The view urged and admitted, as sustaining the patent, was, that no one could or would have believed, in advance, that it was possible. But, the old process of bleaching by ordinary bleaching agents was applied to vegetable fiber, with no change in the manner of application, and with the same distinct result of bleaching. The only difference was that the product was bleached vegetable fiber in the shape of converted guncotton, instead of bleached vegetable fiber not so converted. The fact that bleached gun-cotton had not before been known or contemplated did not make the bleaching of it in that way a patentable invention, in view of the state of the art. What was done was to bleach by a process which acted objectively on the material and left it the same. thing as before bleaching, but in a bleached state. The bleaching agent did not form with the material a new chemical product. No. 101,175 says that the bleaching solution, after the xyloidine is whitened, is drained off, and the bleached article is repeatedly washed with water to remove any excess of bleaching agents, or any residue from such agents. It also states that the material to be used to make "soluble gun-cotton or xyloidine" is "cotton or other vegetable fibers or lignine, either in their normal condition or after they have passed through any manufacturing process, or the refuse of the same, or the ordinary rags of commerce, either in a white, dyed, or colored > condition."

In the case of Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., the decision of the circuit court was reversed on the question of patentability, and the rules laid down show that under it, and the cases which the opinion cites and approves, the decision in the present case as to No. 101,175 ought to have been that claim 2 set forth no patentable invention.

Within the principle applied in Wooster v. Handy, 21 FED. Rep. 51, the court has the power and it is its duty to dismiss, with costs, the bill in this case; and it is so ordered.

MATTHEWS and another, Surviving. Executors, etc., v. IRON-CLAD

MANUF'G CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. August 21, 1884.)

PATENT LAW-IMPROVEMENT IN SODA-WATER FOUNTAINS.

Alleged infringement of patent for tin-lined steel soda fountains. After investigation of the inventions of plaintiffs and defendant, and a comparison of their several parts each with each, no infringement found.

In Equity.

A. v. Briesen and H. L. Burnett, for plaintiffs.
F. H. Betts and E. C. Webb, for defendant.

BLATCHFORD, Justice. This suit is brought on four patents: reissue No. 8,834, granted to John Matthews, August 5, 1879, for an "improvement in soda-water fountains," on an application for reissue filed June 26, 1879, the original patent, No. 128,411, having been granted to said Matthews, June 25, 1872, for 17 years from June 13, 1872; reissue No. 8,837, granted to John Matthews, August 5, 1879, for an "improvement in soda-water apparatus," on an application for reissue filed June 26, 1879, the original patent, No. 137,702, having been granted to said Matthews, April 8, 1873; letters patent No. 159,433, granted to John Matthews, February 2, 1875, for an "improvement in vessels containing gases and liquids under pressure;" and letters patent No. 179,583, granted to John Matthews, July 4, 1876, for an "improvement in fountains for containing aerated beverages.

The specification of reissue No. 8,834, referring to the drawings which accompany it, says:

"Figure 1 is an exterior longitudinal view, and figure 2 a central longitu dinal section of a fountain constructed in accordance with my improvement. My invention consists in a novel construction of a tin-lined steel fountain for soda-water and other aerated or gaseous liquids, such fountain combining lightness with strength, and being of cylindrical form and uniform dimensions, or thereabout, throughout its length, thereby adding to the convenience of packing and handling; also, being exempt from expansion or permanent lateral distention by the interior pressure to which it is subjected, thus preserving its form and contributing to its durability. Fountains for the like purpose, as previously made, have been largely expansive, and retained the set given to them by extension, and being otherwise objectionable. In the accompanying drawings, A represents a block-tin interior body of cylindrical form, with hemispherical or reduced ends, the same constituting the tin lining of the fountain, and being provided at one of its ends with a neck, b, for the introduction of the usual or any suitable connections by which the fountain is charged and its contents drawn off, said neck receiving or having screwed into it a screw-coupling, c, secured by a nut and washer, d, e, on the exterior of an outer end-cap, B, for making the connection. C is the exterior shell or body proper, made of galvanized sheet steel, as may also be the end-caps, B, B1, which are soldered to or over the extremities of the same, and constitute, as it were, parts of said body, C, that surrounds or fits over the tin lining, A. The end-caps, B, B1, are united to the body, C, without v.21F,no.10-41

flanges or projections, by tin joints, as f, f, made by soldering with pure tin, which, being a ringing metal, unites closely with the steel exterior to make a firm and durable joint, as other solders having lead in them will not do. Bands, g, g, of brown paper or other non-conducting material are introduced between the tin lining, A, and steel body, C, at the ends of the latter, to prevent the tin of the lining being melted by the heat used in making the pure tin joints, f, f. The fountain is also filled with water for the same purpose prior to making said joints. The non-stretching character of the body, C, by reason of the same being of steel, insures the fountain preserving its shape, and the absence of end flanges provides for the close packing of a series of such formations when transporting or storing them."

The claims of No. 8,834, four in number, are as follows:

"(1) The combination of the inner continuous tin fountain, A, having neck, b, with the rigid inclosing shell, made in sections, substantially as herein shown and described. (2) The tin vessel, A, incased by a cylinder, C, and ends, B, B1, in the manner substantially as described, as a new and improved article of manufacture, for the purpose specified. (3) The combination of the inner vessel, A, with the exterior covering, made in sections, which are united after being placed around the vessel, A, substantially as specified, the inner vessel being entirely continuous within the covering. (4) The combination of the inner vessel, A, with the surrounding covering or shell, and with intermediate bands, g, g, of paper or non-conducting material, substantially as specified."

Claims 1, 2, and 3 are alleged to have been infringed. The text of the specification of No. 128,411 is identical with that of No. 8,834, as above quoted, except that, in No. 128,411, the word "closely" is inserted between the words "body, C, that" and the words "surrounds or fits." No. 128,411 had only one claim, as follows:

"The tin vessel, A, incased by a steel cylinder, C, and ends, B, B1, soldered to the latter, in the manner substantially as described, as a new and improved article of manufacture, for the purpose specified."

It is contended for the defendant that No. 8,834 is void as to the first three claims, because it was applied for and granted, with expanded and generalized claims, after a delay of seven years in applying for a reissue. The descriptive parts of the two specifications are identical, except as to the word "closely." The omission of that word is not a restriction.

The novel construction of a tin-lined steel fountain, in which the invention is stated, by the original specification, to consist, is shown, by the claim of the original, to be a structure having these features: (1) A tin vessel or lining, A; (2) incased by a steel body or cylinder, C; (3) the outer end-caps or ends, B, B1, soldered to the steel body or cylinder, C, without flanges or projections, by tin joints made by soldering with pure tin instead of by a solder having lead in it. The text of the original specification, in its descriptive part, shows that this was the invention. The claim was adequate to secure that invention. There was nothing ambiguous or obscure or deficient in the claim, to secure that invention. There was no inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and there is no attempt, by proof, to show that there was. The fact that the descriptive parts of the two specifications are alike,