lower edges of said cap are attached, and which has a central opening, a second disk within said cap, and provided with a central tubular lip, which extends downward into the central opening of the first disk, and an eyelet for attaching the latter to the fabric, substantially as set forth."

The defenses relied upon in this case are anticipation, as shown by prior patents, and non-infringement. As bearing on this question of anticipation, it is necessary to construe the Mead patent. The defendants insist that the Mead patent is for an improvement in ordinary metal buttons, as shown in figure 3 of the patent, and that its use with a spring stud is only one of the forms in which the button may be used. I cannot accept this construction of the patent. The specification states that the invention relates more particularly to buttons provided with an open central bore, which adapts them for use especially with spring studs, and in the first claim the language is "a button provided with a central opening for receiving a spring stud." The principal object of the Mead invention was the production of an improved button adapted for use with a spring stud, and incidental thereto the patentee says that by putting a shank or neck on the button to allow space for the fabric, it may be employed as an ordinary button. Taking this view of the patent, that the invention of Mead is primarily an improvement in metallic fasteners to be used with spring studs, I think the patent is valid. There are many prior patents in this branch of the art, but as to this particular type of button, I think Mead made a patentable improvement over prior buttons of this class. All the elements of the Mead fastener, separately considered, may be found in prior patents for ordinary buttons, or for fasteners composed of a metallic button member, and metallic button-hole member, but the combination as arranged by Mead is new and produces an improved result; that improvement consisting largely in the convenient form of the central opening for receiving the spring stud, while at the same time preserving the "button finish." The Mead improvement is manifestly of limited scope in view of the many prior devices, but I do not think it was anticipated by anything found in those devices, and I believe its production, notwithstanding what preceded it in the art, involved the exercise of the inventive faculty. Upon the question of infringement I have no doubt. The defendants' fastener is the Mead fastener, with some slight changes in construction. In defendants' fastener the cap piece is so set by pressing down the edges as to do away with the necessity of any filling for the cap, such as Mead describes, and which is made an element in the combinations covered by the third and fourth claims of the patent. The present suit is upon claims 1 and 2, and these the defendants' fastener clearly infringes. Decree for complainant.

MORSS v. KNAPP et al.

(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut. August 17, 1889

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT.

Letters patent No. 233,240, dated October 12, 1880, were issued for an adjustable dress-form. The form was expanded by means of two opposing braces vertically sliding on a standard, and forming two sides of a triangle, which held the ribs in position. Defendants attached to two rotary collars the links of the lazy tongs, and divided the waistband into four sections, and made the ribs expand in four divisions. The braces in the patent are not merely extension braces, but converge to or towards the same point, and secure each other against rotation. Defendants' braces are extension, and not locking, braces, and are not intended to secure each other against rotation. Held, that there is such a substantial doubt in regard to any infringement by defendants that a preliminary injunction will not be granted.

In Equity. Motion for preliminary injunction.

Payson E. Tucker and Charles F. Perkins, for complainant.
John K. Beach, for defendants.

SHIPMAN, J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction against the alleged infringement by the defendants of the second claim of letters patent No. 233,240, to John Hall, dated October 12, 1880, for an adjustable dress-form. The invention, which is the subject of the second claim, and the claim, are stated in Morss v. Knapp, 37 Fed. Rep. 351, where it is said:

"The principle of the invention is the expansion or adjustment of a skeleton frame radially, in all directions, from a common center. A central pole, or standard, supports the entire form. In the part which supports the skirt, upright, thin, elastic ribs are held towards the standard by elastic bands secured to each rib. There are two series of oppositely inclined braces, one above the other. Those of the upper series are hung by their inner ends to a collar on the standard, and, extending obliquely downward, are hinged to the respective ribs. The braces of the lower series are hinged by their inner ends to a lower collar on the standard, and, extending obliquely upward, are hinged to the ribs at the point where the members of the upper series are hinged. The two collars, called sliding blocks,' are adjustable. When the form requires expansion, the lower collar is elevated, which expands the lower series, but the expansion is governed by the opposing action of the upper series, which compels the movement of the ribs to be substantially parallel with the central standard."

The mechanism is like that of the old-fashioned reel or "swift" for winding yarn. The expanding mechanism of the defendants' form, which is alleged to infringe, is thus described: It "consists of two concentric disks arranged upon a common axis, upon which they may independently rotate. Outside of these disks there is a waistband divided into four segments, and each segment is connected with the disks by means of two links, one link from each segment being hinged to the upper disk, and the other link of each segment being hinged to the lower disk." When the dress-form is in a closed position, the most convenient way to expand it "is for the operator to take hold of two opposite segments of

the waistband and pull the same apart. This will cause the disks to rotate, one in one direction and one in the other, and the inner ends of the connecting links will move in the arc of a circle." It is truly said by the complainant that, within certain limits, the form is expanded radially, in all directions, from a common center. Beyond those limits, the expansion is not radial, but is attended with a change of shape. The complainant next-and here the parties are at issue-insists that the radial expansion is effected in the manner and by the mechanical means shown in the patent, and that each part of the defendants' form corresponds with a similar part in the patented device. The complainant particularly asserts that the links of the one are the double braces of the other, and oppose each other in action, and perform the same office of expansion or contraction, the difference being that in one the plane of action is horizontal and in the other it is vertical; in other words, that the defendants' links are the complainant's braces, with the position changed, so that they move by a horizontal instead of by a vertical movement, and that the defendants' collars slide circumferentially around the standard instead of vertically upon it. The complainant does not probably mean that the defendants' form is merely the Hall form with the position of the respective parts changed, without the exercise of inventive skill in making the change. The patentee caused the ribs to expand by the familiar means of two opposing braces vertically sliding upon a standard, and forming two sides of a triangle, which held the ribs in position. If the defendants had merely changed these braces to a horizontal plane, and merely changed the blocks so that they would move circumferentially, he would have had a useless device. It was necessary to do more, and to establish a new system of braces and blocks. Instead of using the common method by which the reel had been expanded, he attached to two rotating collars the links of the lazy tongs, divided the waistband with its ribs into four sections, and made the ribs to expand in four divisions. The requirements of this method of expansion démanded much more than a simple change from one plane of movement to another plane; and if it is said that the defendants' present form is the complainant's device with merely formal differences, such use of language is general, rather than exact. But it is said that, granting that the defendants used ingenuity and exercised inventive skill in making the change, they used, when it was made, the patentee's method of expansion by the opposing action of two more braces, and therefore infringed upon the complainant's exclusive rights. There is a species of opposing action, by means of the various links of the defendants' form, by which the four sections are prevented from becoming quadrilateral, but the question is, in my opinion, a serious one whether this method of opposition can properly be called the same with that which is exhibited in the patented device. The considerations which raise this doubt are the following: It cannot be true that any action by which the ribs are pulled in different directions is to be considered the opposing action of the Hall braces. In the patented device, the double braces co-act. They are not merely extension braces, which simply expand the ribs, but v.39F.no.12-39

they converge to or towards the same point, and, by this co-action, control or secure, and are intended to secure, each other against rotation. The defendants' links are extension, and not locking, braces. When they are extended, and the collars are clamped, the links, in the language of the defendants' expert, "rotate on their pivots," very much as they would do if parallel to each other, and it is apparent that they are not intended to secure each other against rotation. This mutual control, by means of opposed action, is necessary in a device acting vertically. It does not exist in the defendants' links, but the result is partially attained by an additional set of single supporting braces, which are attached about half way down the skirt. There is such a substantial doubt in re gard to infringement as to prevent the granting of the motion, which is therefore denied.

JENKINS et al. v. RUBERG et al.

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. August 5, 1889.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-MACHINES FOR MAKING METALLIC SHOE-SHANKS.

Reissued letters patent No. 8,163, issued April 9, 1878, to John Hyslop, Jr., for improvements in machines for making metallic shoe shanks, describe a combination of the punching, cutting, and bending mechanism, arranged to operate as set forth. Machines made under letters patent issued to Ruberg January 11, 1887, embrace these three steps, but in the Ruberg machine the projections for making the reverse bends are absent, and there is nothing to correspond to the guide-way of the Hyslop machine, by means of which the blank is to be taken from the cutting device, and delivered to the bending mechanism. The arrangement of the shears and bending dies in Ruberg's machine is also different. Hyslop was the first man to combine the three operations in a machine for making metallic shoe-shanks, but the combination of punching and cutting mechanism was old. Held, that the Ruberg machine was not an infringement of Hyslop's patent.

At Law.

Action for infringement of letters patent.

C. H. Drew, for plaintiffs.

J. E. Maynadier, for defendants.

COLT, J. This suit is brought upon reissued letters patent No. 8,163, dated April 9, 1878, granted to John Hyslop, Jr., for improvements in machines for making metallic shoe-shanks. The invention relates to the organization of a machine by which metal shanks for shoes are cut, punched, and bent, and have their opposite ends reversely bent by one continuous operation. The first and only claim in controversy is as follows:

"In a machine for making metallic shoe-shanks, the combination, substantially as described, of the punching mechanism, the cutting mechanism, and the bending mechanism, arranged to operate as set forth.

At the date of the Hyslop invention it can hardly be said that it was new to cut and punch at each end a strip of metal by one operation, but

the evidence discloses that Hyslop was the first man to combine in one machine the successive operations of cutting, punching, and bending for the production of a metallic shoe-shank. It is admitted that the defendants' machine made under his patent of January 11, 1887, embraces these three successive steps, but it is contended that the cutting and bending devices are quite different from those described in the Hyslop patent. It cannot, of course, be held that the Hyslop patent covers all machines for making metallic shoe-shanks which have cutting, punching, and bending mechanisms. The only question in the case, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Whether the cutting and bending mechanisms found in the Ruberg machine are the equivalent of those described in the Hyslop patent. What did Hyslop invent, and does the defendant accomplish the same result by substantially the same or equivalent means? Giving the Hyslop patent a fairly broad interpretation by reason of his being the first person to combine all these operations in a single machine, still I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion that the Ruberg machine infringes that patent. The Ruberg machine leaves out some of the important features which Hyslop makes essential parts of his machine, and substitutes no equivalents therefor. The projections for making the reverse bend are absent from the Ruberg machine. There is nothing in the Ruberg machine which corresponds to the guide-way of the Hyslop machine by means of which the blank is taken from the cutting device and delivered to the bending mechanism. In the Hyslop patent this mechanism is made up of the lips or flanges, h, against which the front edge of the plate is held to gauge the cut, the incline, m, down which the blank falls guided by the lips, h, and the stop pins, c2, secured to the top of the bending die, and which serve to arrest the blank as it falls down the incline. In Ruberg's machine the organization is more simple. The bending dies are placed close to or just back of the stationary cutter, and the blank is brought into position between the bending dies before it is cut from the strip. When the strip of metal in the Ruberg machine, from which the blank is to be cut, is fed into the machine, and comes against the stops, which give the width of the blank to be cut, that portion of the strip which makes the blank is directly over the stationary or lower die, and in position for the upper die to act upon it immediately after the blank is cut. The arrangement of the shears and bending dies in the Ruberg machine is very different from their arrangement in the Hyslop patent. The combination of punching and cutting mechanism was not new with Hyslop. He did invent one way of combining cutting mechanism with bending mechanism, and Ruberg devised another way to accomplish the same result. The ingenious expert for the complainant has sought to show that the means employed by both are substantially the equivalent of each other, but I find the fact to be otherwise, and it follows that judgment should be entered for the defendants.