The bed B, the cushion-rails C, with their attached cushions e, and the legs a which support the body of the table, are all made in about the usual most approved manner; but the side rails f, or sides of the body of the table, are made and arranged, as seen, in an oblique in lieu of the vertical or nearly vertical position, their upper edges being located so far under the table and away from the cushion-rails as they can be placed and afford a proper support to the edges of the slabs composing the bed. The figure represented by the body thus formed is that of an inverted frustum of a pyramid, instead of being about rectangular in its appearance, as in most of the tables heretofore made. The sides ƒ should be beveled or inclined inward as they descend from the cushion-rails or under side of the bed at about an angle of from thirty to forty degrees, or quite sufficiently to permit the player to place his leg in the proper position for reaching as far as possible with the bridge-hand, but no farther than is necessary for this purpose, because if the angle or flare be increased the structure is proportionately weakened, the capacity of the body or frame to sustain vertical strain being lessened as such inverted frustuminal frame is flattened out. At Fig. 2 I have illustrated part of the player's figure to show the convenient and advantageous position which the player may assume in playing, and which position it would be utterly impossible to assume were the sides ƒ extended down in the usual manner about vertically. It will be seen that the beveling of the sides or broad rails of the table, as shown and described, permits the player to so extend his bended knee under the table and so place his foot and posture himself as to maintain his equilibrium perfectly while reaching over the table to make his bridge, and that the arrangement of the beveled sides with the bed and cushion-rails, as shown and described, renders the support of the bed as perfect and the whole structure as durable as in tables made with the old-fashioned vertical broad rails. Any one skilled in the art appreciates the importance of affording the best possible support to the bed throughout the whole extent of the plane of the table, so that it will not get out of level. It will also be seen that while in a table made according to my invention the body will be equally as strong as, if not stronger (with the same amount of material) than, a table made in the old way, by the convergence of the sides ƒ as they descend the legs d are brought farther under the table and more out of the way of the player's feet. The construction of such a table as herein shown and described is no more expensive than one with the vertical sides, and may be ornamented and elaborated to the same extent that other tables can be, while at the same time the inclination or obliquity given to the sides, and the consequent location of the legs farther under the table, give to the whole machine or contrivance a lighter and more beautiful appearance. It will be understood that the angle of inclination of the sides ƒ may be varied somewhat from the position or inclination shown without departing from the spirit of my invention, the gist of which rests in the idea of having the planes of the broad rails ƒ so inclined or beveled under as to permit the placement of the player's leg and foot as I have explained, and so combined and arranged with the bed and cushion-rails of the table as to afford the most effectual and permanent support of the bed by the said broad rails. I am aware, as I have already remarked, that previous to my invention what are commonly known as "French" tables have been made and used; but that my invention should not be confounded with any such construction of table, which differs materially from my improved billiard-table in these essential and material particulars, among others, viz: first, in the French (or ogee) tables the sides of the body, or those parts corresponding to what are called in American tables the "broad rails," were so combined and arranged with the cushion-rail and bed that the lower portions of the body (that part on about a level with the bended knee of the player) were not located any farther under the table and out of the way of the player than were the lower portions of the bodies of the old-fashioned vertical-sided (American) tables; second, in the French tables the curved form or the ogee shape of the body rendered the cost of construction so great that the manufacturer of such tables could not compete with the manufacturer of either the plane vertical-sided tables or my improved beveled tables. The claim is as follows: In combination with the bed and projecting cushion-rails, the beveled sides or broad rails ƒ, the whole constructed and arranged substantially in the manner and for the purposes described. Infringement is proved and not contested. The defenses insisted on are that the patent is invalid because the plaintiff was not the original and first inventor of the combination claimed in the patent, because the same invention was described by him in a prior patent, and because the invention claimed was not in itself a patentable invention. The original patent of December 23, 1873, was applied for January 16, 1872. On the 6th of June, 1871, letters patent were issued to the plaintiff for a design for a billiard-table. The specification says: My invention relates to a new shape and design for billiard-tables. Previous to my invention billiard-tables have generally been made with the sides to extend down vertically from the lower side of the rail. In this shape, since the body of the table has to be rather deep to give strength to it, it is rather inconvenient for the player to get his leg in a position which will enable him to reach over the table, and hence this form of construction is objectionable. This objection has, I believe, been practically overcome by a design of some of the French tables, the deep side pieces of which run downward in a sort of ogee form; but this shape, composed of curved surfaces, renders the cost of manufacture of the table much greater than is compensated for by the advantage of greater convenience to the player. I propose by my design to overcome the difficulty found in the shape of body or sides as the tables have been generally made, and render the design and appearance of the table much handsomer, while at the same time the cost of manufacture shall not be increased at all. In the accompanying drawing I have shown, in elevation at Figure 1 and in vertical cross-section at Fig. 2, a table of my new design or shape. In the drawing, A is the body or main frame of the table, B the bed, e the cushionrails, d the legs, and e the cushions, all of which are made about as usual, except that the main frame is made so that the sides of the body of the table run under or flare at about an angle of thirty or forty degrees, as shown at ƒ. The inclined sides ƒ, it will be seen, are perfect planes, so that the expense of getting out the stuff and putting together and the veneering is no more than in the manufacture of the vertically-sided tables now generally made. The inclined or flared sides ƒ may be ornamented, paneled, &c., to any desired extent. By reference to the figure drawn at Fig. 2 it will be seen that the player can so extend his leg under the table, when made as shown, as to enable him to reach farther over the bed, which is a great convenience, and enables the player to easily reach many shots which on the table as now made have to be played with the bridge. The claim is in these words: The design for billiard-tables, as herein shown and described. The specific defense set up in the answer in connection with the design patent is that the invention patented by the mechanical patent was described in the design patent before it was invented by the plaintiff. What exact defense is intended by this statement it is difficult to see. In argument it is contended for the defendants that as the mechanical patent was issued December 23, 1873, more than two years after the issuing of the design patent, which was issued June 6, 1871, the mechanical patent is void, because the original mechanical patent describes and claims the same thing which is described in the design patent. The application for the mechanical patent was filed January 16, 1872. The statutory defense allowed by section 61 of the aet of July 8, 1870 (16 U. S. Stats. at Large, 208, now sec. 4920, of the Rev. Stats.), is that the thing patented had been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years before the patentee's application for a patent, or had been abandoned to the public. No such defense is set up in the answer, nor is any such defense proved by the evidence. The fact that the original mechanical patent was issued more than two years after the design patent is of no importance. The claim of the design patent is a claim to shape. The claim of the reissued mechanical patent is a claim to a mechanical combination. The shape of the structure may be the same as the shape in the design patent, but the subject-matter of the two claims is not the same. The shape covered by the claim of the design patent may be attained without following the mechanical combination claimed in the reissued mechanical patent. It is apparent from the evidence that there is sufficient utility and advantage in the structure with the broad side rails made of beveled or inclined planes, in the way of cheapness of construction, as compared with a curved or ogee form, to support the patent. For the same reason the prior structures which did not have the broad side rails made of beveled or inclined planes, but had them curved or ogee in form, are not an anticipation of the claim of the reissued mechanical patent. But the evidence of Daniel D. Winant and of Strong V. Moore is sufficient to show the prior existence of billiard-tables containing the combination covered by the plaintiff's reissued patent. I refer to the beveled tables which Winant says he repaired in New York, and which were imported tables, and were made like any other table, except that the broad rail was beveled, and cushion-rail projecting over the bed of the table, and the bed projecting over the frame. I refer also to the billiard tables constructed like the defendant's infringing tables, which Moore saw in New York nearly fifty years ago, the broad rail being a straight bevel made of flat plank and veneered. These former tables appear to have gone out of fashion and been replaced by the vertical-sided tables, and then to have come into repute again. It is apparent from the evidence that in these former tables, so testified to by Winant and Moore, not only did the beveled plane of the broad rails place the broad rails and the legs out of the way of the player's knee, but the arrangement of the broad rails with the cushion-rail and the table-bed was such that the table-bed was properly supported, the cushion-rail projecting over the bed. I do not deem it necessary to refer to any of the testimony as to other prior tables or as to drawings of prior tables, as it results from the foregoing considerations that the bill must be dismissed, with costs. [United States Circuit Court-Western District of Pennsylvania.] KNEELAND ET AL. v. SHERIFF ET AL. Decided June 22, 1880. 18 O. G., 242: 1. Patent No. 53,630, granted April 3, 1865, to E. Y. Kneeland, for improvements in pistons for deep-well pumps, sustained. 2. "A patentee whose patent is assailed upon the ground of want of novelty may show by sketches and drawings the date of his inceptive invention, and if he has exercised reasonable diligence in perfecting and adapting it and in applying for a patent, its protection will be carried back to such date." Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Company, 1. O. G., 466. PISTONS FOR DEEP-WELL PUMPS. Mr. George H. Christy for the complainants. MCKENNAN, J.: The only defense set up and relied upon in this case is that the complainant, E. Y. Kneeland, is not the first and original inventor of the device described and claimed in his patent. This defense rests entirely upon alleged prior invention by one Robert M. Davis. The decisive question, then, in the case is one of dates. It would not be profitable to collate the proofs on this point. That Kneeland conceived the idea of his invention in 1863; that he described it partially to different persons afterward; that he made sketches and had a drawing of it made in the summer of 1864, and that he was diligent in reducing it to a practical form, and in obtaining a patent for it is all satisfactorily shown. The precise date of the occurrence of these facts does not appear; but it is evident that the statements of the witnesses on this point are approximately correct, because from the nature of the transactions stated they must have occurred, if the witnesses are to be believed at all, some time anterior to the date of the application for the patent, which was February 27, 1865. It is not satisfactorily proved that before the date of Kneeland's invention, thus established, the device of Davis was made and used. There is at least plausible reason for the inference that the conception of Davis's valve was not matured in his own mind earlier than the latter part of 1864, and was not constructed and used until some time during the year 1865. This at least seems to me to be clear, that the conception and description of Davis's valve is not carried back by any witness to the time when it is shown that Kneeland described and sketched his invention, in the early part of September, 1864. That this is the latest period at which Kneeland's invention can be fixed is settled by numerous decisions, as was said in Reeves v. The Keystone Bridge Co. (1 O. G., 466): But a patentee whose patent is assailed upon the ground of want of novelty may show by sketches and drawings the date of his inceptive invention, and, if he has exercised reasonable diligence in perfecting and adapting it and in applying for his atent, its protection will be carried back to such date. Kneeland's inceptive invention was the earliest, and he was diligent n perfecting and adapting it and in applying for his patent. He is therefore prior in right to Davis, and is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Let a decree accordingly be prepared. [United States Circuit Court-Southern District of New York.] WILLIAMS v. BARKER ET AL. Decided October Term, 1879. 18 O. G., 243. When the several elements of a patented machine differ from a prior machine only as to the form of certain parts common to both, the patent, in order to be sustained, must be restricted in scope to the improvements in the form of such parts. Mr. Charles F. Blake for the complainant. Mr. J. P. Fitch for the defendants. WHEELER, J.: This suit is brought upon letters patent reissued to the plaintiff June 4, 1872, the original of which was dated November 26, 1861, for an improvement in machines for applying flock to felt rubber goods. The defense is that the patent cannot stand broad enough to cover the defendant's machine. The defendants have put in evidence two English patents, one granted to William Green and Joseph Pickett, October 21, 1854, and sealed April 21, 1855, for improvement in treating or ornamenting textile materials or fabrics; the other granted to Stanislaus Tranquillo Modeste Sorel, June 23, 1855, and sealed November 16, 1855, for a machine for applying adhesive materials on stuffs. The latter only need be noticed here. In the machine there described the fabric to be treated was passed from a cylinder, on which it was wound, over another cylin der, where the adhesive material was distributed upon it; thence over a stretcher above the line of the top of the distributing cylinder and not far from it, designated in the patent and drawings by the letter J; thence under a flock sifter, called in the patent a "colander-shakero," by machinery; thence over beaters, striking it on the under side to set the flock in the adhesive material; thence under a brush to sweep its upper surface, and onward in the machine to a receiving-cylinder. The stretcher |