In the patent itself the patentee says: My process does thus greatly change the thickness of the metal in different placesby swaging and upsetting the metal, and differs from the prior art, where there is only a changing of the shape of the tube, there is no upsetting of the metal, making it thinner in some parts and in others thicker. And he claims to be the first discoverer of this capacity of such metal tubes to be thus "upset without crimping," and shows in his drawings only plain tubes as the ones possessing such capacity. Inasmuch as defendants' process is applied only to corrugated tubes, and changes the shape of such tubes solely by folding or unfolding the corrugations therein, and does not upset the metal or make it thicker in some parts and thinner in others, in which respects it differs from the alleged discovery of the patentee, as described by him and differentiated from the prior art, there is no infringement. Let the bill be dismissed. [U. S. Circuit Court-Eastern District of Wisconsin.] TRAVERS v. GEM HAMMOCK AND FLY NET COMPANY. Decided March 2, 1896. 75 O. G., 678. ROOD-ART OF MAKING HAMMOCKS-MECHANICAL OPERATION-INVALID. Messrs. Briesen & Knauth for the complainant. Messrs. Benedict & Morsell for the defendant. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The patent to which the demurrer relates is No. 296,460, granted April 8, 1884, to Albert O. Rood, assignor to Vincent P. Travers, the complainant, for an improvement in the art of making hammocks. Figures 4, 5, and 6 of the drawings accompanying the patent are diagrams showing different stages of progress in the manufacture of the hammock ends, and Fig. 3 is a top view of a hammock having one of its ends finished and the other in process of construction. The specification states: This invention has for its object to simplify the mode of constructing hammocks, and particularly the ends thereof, which are the parts of hammocks containing the converging threads and the suspension eyes or loops. The invention consists, principally, in forming the hammock-body with loops in the ends thereof in any known manner; in then forming each end of the hammock by drawing a cord, from which the converging strands are to be made, through the loops at the ends of the hammock-body in a straight line, and in then drawing this thread from between said loops, forming of it the converging strands of the hammock end and finally uniting these strands into a terminal eye, all as hereinafter more fully described and claimed. The two claims of the patent read as follows: 1. The art of making hummocks which consists in forming the hammock.body with loops b b in the ends thereof in any known manner, then forming each end of the hammock by drawing the cord E, from which the hammock end is to be made, in a straight line through the end loops b b of the hammock-body, and in then drawing said cord from between said end loops b b, forming of it the converging strands of the hammock end and in finally uniting these strands into a terminal eye, i, substantially as herein shown and described. 2. The art of making hammocks which consists in forming the hammock-body with loops bb in the ends thereof in any known manner, then forming each end of the hammock by drawing the cord E in a straight line through the loops b b that are at the ends of the hammock-body D, in then drawing this cord out from between the end loops baud holding it temporarily, in then coiling or winding the outer part of this cord, and in then forming from this coiled or wound portion the eye i at the end of the hammock, substantially as herein shown and described. SEAMAN, J.: The bill of complaint alleges infringement, respectively, of two Letters Patent-viz., first, No. 277,161, issued May 8, 1883, and, second, No. 296,460, issued April 8, 1884. Demurrer is interposed to so much of the bill as relates to the latter patent, No. 296,460, on the ground that the patent is for a process and is void upon its face. This patent contains two claims of similar nature and each stated as for "the art of making hammocks." I think each clearly states a process under the definitions of the patent law, that it involves merely mechanical operations without any chemical action or the operation of natural elements, and that therefore the process is not patentable under the rule held in Risdon I. & L. Works v. Medart (C. D., 1895, 330; 71 O, G., 751; 158 U. S., 68) and Wells Glass Co. v. Henderson, (C. D., 1805, 462; 72 O. G., 285; 67 Fed. Rep., 935.) The question is clearly presented upon the fact of this patent, and it does not seem to me that aid cau be furnished by extraneous or expert testimony. Therefore it is well raised by demurrer and will thus reach a final determination in the best method for all concerned. The demurrer is sustained. [U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals-Sixth Circuit.] AMERICAN FIBRE CHAMOIS COMPANY v. BUCKSKIN FIBRE COMPANY et al. AMERICAN FIBRE CHAMOIS COMPANY v. WILLIAM. SON et al. AMERICAN FIBRE CHAMOIS COMPANY v. MUELLER et al. Decided February 10, 1896, 75 O. G., 833, 1. Scott-Manufacture of Flexible Paper-VOID. Letters Patent No. 216,108, granted June 3, 1879, to T. Seymour Scott, for an improvement in the manufacture of flexible paper, are void for want of patentable novelty, 2. APPEAL-ASSignment of Error-Failure to MAKE ARGUMENT, Where counsel for an appellant or a plaintiff in error files a brief and makes an oral argument and does not allude in either to one or more of his assignments of orror, he must be taken to have waived them. The court cannot be expected to examine the assignment of error and find the reason for reversal itself. 3. MCLAUCHLIn-ManufactuRE OF IMITATION CHAMOIS FROM PAPER-PULP— DOUBTFUL PAtentability—Demurrer-JudiCIAL NOTICE OF MATTERS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE, The patentability of the claims of Letters Patent No. 511,789, granted to John C. McLauchlin January 2, 1894, for improvements in the manufacture of imita tion dressed chamois buckskin from paper-pulp in sheets, was sufficiently doubt. ful to require the overruling of a demurrer that upon the specification of the patent the court was able to declare, in view of matters of common knowledge of which the court could take judicial notice, that there was no patentable novelty or invention shown in the patent, 4. PATENTABILITY-VALIDITY OF PATENT ON ITS FACE-JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MATTERS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE, In considering the question of the validity of a patent on its face the court may take judicial notice of facts of common and goneral knowledge tending to show that the device or process patented is old or lacking in invention, and the court may refresh its recollections of what facts were of common knowledge at the time of the application for the patent by reference to printed matter which is known to be reliable and to have been published prior to the application for the patent, 5. MECHANICAL PROCESS-PATENTABILITY, A process of reducing fibrous sheets to a soft and pliable condition by first moistening and then pounding the sheets while in a moist condition is not a mero mechanical process or an aggregation of functions within the limitation announced by the Supreme Court in the case of Risdon Iron and Locomotire Works v. Medart, (C. D., 1895, 330; 71 O. G., 751; 158 U. S., 68.) The moistening of the sheets and the treatment in a moistened condition is more or less chemical in its character. APPEALS from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. Mr. Laurence Maxwell, Jr., Mr. M. B. Philipp, and Mr. M. H. Phelps for the appellants. Mr. M. D. Leggett, Mr. A. E. Lynch, aud Mr. John P. Corrothers for the appellees. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. These are six suits in equity brought to enjoin the infringement of patent rights by the same complainant. Three of them, Nos. 332, 333, and 336, were brought against three different defendants to restrain the infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 511,789, issued to John C. McLauchlin January 2, 1894, for new and useful improvements for the manufacture of imitation dressed chamois buckskin from paper-pulp in sheets. The defendants in each of these cases filed answers. No replications were filed by the complainant, and the defendants made motions to dismiss the bills on that account. Thereupon the complainant appeared and moved to dismiss the bills without prejudice on the ground that, having acquired another patent, it wished to include both in the same actions against the defendants and proposed the dismissal without prejudice in order to unite the patents in a new bill. To this motion the defendants objected, asked leave to withdraw their answers and to file demurrers to the original bills. This leave was granted to defendants, the demurrers were filed and, after argument, were sustained by the court on the ground that upon the specifications of the patents the court was able to declare, in view of the matters of common knowledge of which it could take judicial notice, that there was no patentable novelty or invention shown in either patent. Notwithstanding the action of the court in refusing to dismiss, the same complainant filed three new bills, Nos. 334, 335, and 337, for an injunction against the same defendants, respectively, in which it charged the defendants with the infringement of both the McLauchlin patent and of a patent to T. Seymour Scott, No. 216,108, dated June 3, 1879, for an improvement in the manufacture of flexible paper, which the complainant had since acquired by assignment. To these bills demurrers were filed on the ground that both the McLauch lin and the Scott patents were void for want of patentable novelty. These demurrers were sustained and decrees entered dismissing the bills. Appeals have been taken from all six decrees and they have been heard as one case in this court. The specification of the Scott patent, which was applied for February 8, 1879, was as follows: The object of my invention is the production of a strong and water-proof flexible paper adapted for use in the making of bed-covers, table and counter covers, wallhangings, floor-coverings, and the like. Heretofore when paper has been employed for such purposes it has been made chiefly of rags, and has not had the requisite strength to withstand hard usage, and not being strong and flexible has been apt to crack and break in the creases. My invention designs to effectuate the making of a paper which shall be not only flexible, but also strong and impervious to dampness. I take a paper composed of strong fibers, such as manila, jute, linen, or the like, manufactured in the manner usual in the art, and of a quality capable of sustaining a tensile strain of not less than two hundred pounds per inch in the direction of its length when made twelve square feet to the pound. While in the process of its manufacture, or after it has been made, I render this paper impervious to water by the application, in any desired manner, of suitable size. I then pass the paper so prepared through suitable breaking stamps or rollers, so as to render it limp or flexible; and this may be done either while the paper is yet in the paper-machine or in a separate machine adapted for the purpose. It sometimes becomes necessary to pass the paper several times through the breaking-rolls, and sometimes in contrary directions. I then, when the uses to which it is desired to apply the product demand a very smooth surface, pass the paper which has been rendered flexible, as above described, through calender-rolls, in order to smooth it. I have also discovered that oil-printed paper of the composition which I have mentioned may be passed in similar manner through breaking-rolls and rendered flexible. Having thus described my invention, I claim and desire to secure by Letters Patent of the United States 1. The process herein described of making flexible paper, which consists in passing Manila or kindred paper through breaking-rolls, substantially as described. 2. The process herein described of making flexible paper, which consists in passing Manila or kindred paper through breaking-rolls, and subsequently through calendering-rolls, substantially as described. 3. As a new article of manufacture, strong flexible paper for wall-hangings, covers, and the like, substantially as described. The specification in the McLauchlin patent and the claims are as follows: The object of my invention is to produce a fabric composed of fiber matted and formed into sheets but having superior softness and flexibility and a surface free from abrasion or disintegration of the fiber, and closely resembling chamois or buck skin. My invention consists in an improved process of making such fabrics. I am well aware that sheets composed of matted fiber have heretofore been made pliable by rubbing or crushing between knobbed rollers, such sheets or fabrics being designed to be used in the place of textile fabrics, and I am aware that my invention is limited to improvements in this art. I have discovered that wood fiber, treated by the sulphite or chemical process is peculiarly fitted, by reason of its softness, to be used in a fabric designed as a substitute for cloth and requiring the softness and flexibility of that fabric. The objections found to exist in fabrics thus made out of this kind of fiber, by any of the methods of manufacture heretofore known to me, I have found to be these: that the sheets made of such fiber, will, when rubbed to reduce the stiffness of the sheets, abrade upon the surface and show a fibrous appearance and lose in large measure the strength as well as smooth or solid surface. If, further, the sheet of fiber be rendered flexible by pounding or crushing in a dry condition the wood |