after the passage of the act, "the laws of the various tribes or nations of Indians shall not be enforced at law or in equity by the courts of the United States in the Indian territory;" and the twenty-eighth section, that after July 1, 1898, all tribal courts in the Indian territory should be abolished.

The agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes contained a provision continuing the tribal government, as modified, for the period of eight years from March 4, 1898; but provided that it should "not be construed to be in any respect an abdication by Congress of power at any time to make needful rules and regulations respecting said

tribes."

For reasons already given we regard this act in general as not obnoxious to constitutional objection, but in so holding we do not intend to intimate any opinion as to the effect that changes made thereby, or by the agreements referred to, may have, if any, on the status of the several applicants, who are parties to these appeals.

The elaborate opinions of the United States court in the Indian territory by Springer, J., Clayton, J., and Townsend, J., contained in these records, some of which are [492]to be found in the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1898, page 479, consider the subject in all its aspects, and set forth the various treaties, tribal constitutions and laws, and the action of the many tribal courts, commissions, and councils which assumed to deal with it, but we have not been called on to go into these matters, as our conclusion is that we are confined to the question of constitutionality merely.

As we hold the entire legislation constitutional, the result is that all the judgments must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice McKenna dissented as to the extent of the jurisdiction of this court only.

APPEAL from a decree of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirming the decree of the Supreme Court of that District in favor of the Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Company, plaintiff, and sustaining the validity of a patent issued to Horace J. Hoffman for improvements in storage cases for books and allowing damages in a suit in equity brought by said company against the Office Specialty Manufac turing Co. Reversed, and case remanded, with directions to dismiss the suit.

See same case below, 12 App. D. C. 201. See also Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. Rep. 831, 84 Fed. Rep. 893.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown: This was a bill in equity filed in the su preme court of the District of Columbia by the Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Company against the appellant to recover for the infringement of letters patent number 450.124, issued April 7, 1891, to Horace J. Hoffman for improvements in storage cases for books.

In the specification the patentee declares that "the object of my invention is to facilitate the handling and prevent the abrasion and injury of heavy books, etc. It consists essentially, of the peculiar arrangement of 493] the guiding and supporting rollers, and of the peculiarities in the construction of the case and shelves hereinafter specifically set forth."

The following drawing of one of the shelves exhibits the peculiar features of the invention. The drawing explains itself so per fectly that no excerpt from the specification is necessary to an understanding of the claims.

The two claims alleged to have been infringed are as follows:

"1. In a storage case for books, etc., the combination of a supporting rack or shelf composed of metallic strips and having a reentrant bend or recess in its front edge and rollers journaled in said rack and projecting above and in front of the same on each side of said bend or recess, substantially as described.

"2. In a book shelf, the combination of a supporting frame, a series of horizontal roliers, the front roller in two separated sections, the intermediate part of the frame being carried back to permit the admission of the hand between said roller sections, substantially as described."

The defendant, the Office Specialty Manufacturing Company, was the assignee,

hrough mesne assignments of Jewell and Yawman, whose application for a patent, iled November 6, 1888, was put in interference in the Patent Office with the application of Hoffman, filed February 12, 1887, and the interference proceedings on behalf of Jewell and Yawman, were conducted by the parties who subsequently formed the Office Specialty Manufacturing Company. The Examiner of Interferences, the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, and the Commissioner of Patents successively decided in favor of Hoffman, to whose assignees the letters patent were subsequently issued. During the pendency of the interference, the Hoffman application was divided, as permitted by the rules of the Patent Office, to secure a patent for certain features not involved in the interference.

Upon a hearing on pleadings and proofs a decree was entered adjudging the patent to be valid, and the first and second claims thereof to have been infringed by the defendant; and the case was sent to the auditor to determine and report the profits and damages resulting from the infringement.

After certain proceedings, taken with respect to several infringing devices, not necessary to be here set forth, a final decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, which, so far as respects the validity of the patent, was affirmed by the court of appeals, with an allowance for damages, which had been rejected by the supreme court. 12 App. D. C. 201. Whereupon the defendant appealed to this court.

Messrs. Melville Church and Joseph B. Church for appellant.

Mr. Charles Elwood Foster for appellee.

4] Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion

of the court:

We consider the question of the validity of this patent as the decisive one in this case. The patent was adjudged to be valid by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, as well as by the court of appeals. It had been held to be invalid by Judge Lacombe, sitting in the circuit court for the southern district of New York, upon a motion for a preliminary injunction (Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. Rep. 831), and by Judge Wheeler, upon a final hearing of the same case (84 Fed. Rep. 893). 95] The elements of Hoffman's combination as described in the first claim alleged to be infringed, are (1) a supporting rack or shelf composed of metallic strips; (2) a re-entrant bend or recess in its front edge for the insertion of the hand; and (3) rollers journaled in the rack and projecting above and in front of the same on each side of the recess. In the second claim the combination is described as (1) a supporting frame (apparently including one of wood as well as of metal; (2) a series of horizontal rollers, the front rollers being in two separated sections; (3) the intermediate part of the frame being carried back to permit the admission of the hand between said roller sec

tions. It may be remarked in passing that none of the decisions in the Patent Office in the interference proceedings dealt with the question of prior devices.

The introduction of rollers in book shelves is undoubtedly a convenient and valuable device for preventing the abrasion of large and heavy books which are obliged to be laid flat upon the shelves, especially when they are subjected to frequent handling; but the employment of roller shelves at the time Hoffman made his application for a patent (February 12, 1887) was by no means a novelty. Indeed, plaintiff's own expert testifies that "it was common to use what were called roller shelves, the same consisting of frames or supports and longitudinal parallel rollers, which extended the entire length of the shelf and served to reduce friction in putting books upon and withdrawing them from the shelf. One form of such shelves is shown in complainant's exhibit, Office Specialty Manufacturing Company's catalogue, Figure 16." This exhibit shows a shelf frame made of bent metal, firmly riveted together, containing three continuous rollers, each of the full length of the shelf, made of steel in tubular form. Continuing, the witness said:

"The use of such shelves was, and is, however, limited because of certain defects; for instance, one of the principal defects is the liability of the person placing the book upon the shelf to have the fingers pinched between the book and the front roller in placing the book on the shelf. With light, small books this, of course, was not a matter of special importance, and the shelves can be used with[496] such books, but the class of books for which such shelves are especially adapted is heavy books, such as are used in keeping government records, weighing, in many instances, from ten to twenty-six or even thirty pounds, and quite large, and with such books the liability to injure the fingers in putting them on and taking them from the shelf is very great."

So long before Hoffman's application as the year 1870, Samuel H. Harris had obtained a patent, No. 107,042, for a shelf of three parallel wooden rollers covered with sheet metal, the specification of which seems to assume that wooden rollers had theretofore been used in iron cases for books.

A patent issued in 1876 to John L. Boone, No. 182,157, describes his invention as consisting "in attaching rollers to the front edges of book shelves so that when a book is withdrawn from or placed upon the shelf it will move over the roller instead of over the edge of the shelf." This is to obviate the danger of the book being abraded by the sharp corners of the shelf over which it is dragged, especially if the shelf is higher than the level of the person's head who handles it.

A patent issued in 1885 to Walter H. Conant shows a similar arrangement of front rollers to protect the books.

In a patent to Marion T. Wolfe of October 7, 1879, No. 220,265, there is shown a book case in which three series of short rollers, each inserted in what the patentee calls

a "box," are employed as a support for the books. These boxes run at right angles to the front of the case, and they are so constructed that the hand may be introduced between any two series of rollers in order to more readily grasp the back of the book, without liability of the fingers being caught by the edge of the shelf.

A device somewhat similar to that patented to Harris is shown in a patent issued in 1886 to A. Lemuel Adams, wherein a shelf is provided with a series of parallel short rollers, the front rollers being supported upon spring arms, which are carried forward so as to permit of the introduction of the hand between them, and thus facilitate the withdrawal of the book, without liability of con[497]tact of the fingers with any portion of the shelf. When a book is to be placed in position, it is first rested upon the spring rollers, which by their elasticity assist in forcing the book upon the fixed rollers, when it is easily passed by such rollers to its proper place. The extension of the elastic rollers in front of the shelf would seem to prevent the use of doors in front of the shelves, and it is clear they do not support the books when in place.

There was also oral testimony showing that there were in use in the courthouse in Richmond, Indiana, in the year 1873, and thereafter, unpatented roller shelves for books, consisting of a wooden shelf, having the ordinary hand hole at the front, upon each side of which there were short rollers similar to Hoffman's, though some distance from the front edge, which enabled the back of the book to be readily grasped and easily withdrawn upon the rollers. The evidence showed that hundreds of these rollers were used, and one of them, taken from the courthouse in Richmond, was introduced as an exhibit.

Comparing these several devices with the patent in suit, it is manifest that every element of the combination, described in the first and second claims, is found in one or the other of such devices. Roller shelves are found in all the patents above described as well as in the Richmond shelf, and if there were any invention in substituting metal for a wooden frame, it appears to have been anticipated in the shelf used by the Specialty Company, known as figure 16, the existence of which before the Hoffman application for a patent is admitted by plaintiff's expert as well as by the manager of the plaintiff corporation. It was no novelty to place rollers at the front edges of the shelves, so as to project above and in front of the shelves, as this is shown in the Boone, Conant, and Adams patent, and in the defendant's metallic shelf, used prior to the Hoffman application. The employment

of semicircular hand holes or recesses, for more readily grasping the books, is such a familiar device in upright partitions for holding books that scarcely any banking or record office is without them, and the court may properly take judicial notice of their use long prior to this patent. Brown v. Piper, 91 Ü. S. 37 [23: [498]200]; Terhune v. "Phillips, 99 U. S. 292 [25: 293]; King v. Gallun, 109 U.S.99 [29: 870];

Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 608 [28: 532, 533]. If there were any invention in applying them to roller shelves, Hoffman is not entitled to the credit of it, since they are shown in the so-called Richmond shelf. The construction of the Wolfe and Adams patents is also such as to permit the introduction of the hand for grasping the book without coming in contact with the edge of the shelves.

Putting the Hoffman patent in its most favorable light, it is very little, if anything, more than an aggregation of prior wellknown devices, each constituent of which aggregation performs its own appropriate function in the old way. . Where a combination of old devices produces a new result such combination is doubtless patentable, but where the combination is not only of old elements, but of old results, and no new function is evolved from such combination, it falls within the rulings of this court in Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, 368 [22: 241, 248]; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 356 [23: 719, 723]; Phillips v. City of Detroit, 111 U. S. 604 [28: 532]; Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 146 U. S. 515, 517 [36: 1068]; Palmer v. Corning, 156 U. S. 342, 345 [39: 445, 447]; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co. 158 U. S. 299 [39: 991]. Hoffman may have succeeded in producing a shelf more convenient and more salable than any which preceded it, but he has done it principally, if not wholly, by the exercise of mechanical skill.

If there be any invention at all in this patent, it is not to be found in the combination described in the claims, but by a reference to the drawing, and in the words "substantially as described." This would confine the plaintiff to a metallic frame divided longitudinally into three sections, each fitted with short rollers, two of which project above and forward of the front bar of the frame, which is bent inward in front of the middle section to form the "re-entrant bend or recess" for the insertion of the hand.

But in whatever light this device be considered, it is evident that, limiting the patent to the precise construction shown, none of the defendant's devices can be treated as infringements, since none of them show a shelf divided into three sections, and none of them, except possibly one, the manufacture *of[499] which was stopped, indicate a bend in the front bar of the frame to form the recess for the insertion of the hand.

The decree of the court below must be reversed, and the case remanded to the court of appeals, with directions to order the bill to be dismissed.

ALBERT WADE, Pctitioner,

v.

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 499-510.)

Determination of state statute-latest state decisions-bonds issued under favorable state decisions—validity of county bonds determined by the latest state decisions.

after the passage of the act, the laws of the

various tribes or nations of Indians shall not be enforced at law or in equity by the courts of the United States in the Indian territory;" and the twenty-eighth section, that after July 1, 1898, all tribal courts in the Indian territory should be abolished.

The agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes contained a provision continuing the tribal government, as modified, for the period of eight years from March 4, 1898; but provided that it should "not be construed to be in any respect an abdication by Congress of power at any time to make needful rules and regulations respecting said tribes."

For reasons already given we regard this act in general as not obnoxious to constitutional objection, but in so holding we do not intend to intimate any opinion as to the effect that changes made thereby, or by the agreements referred to, may have, if any, on the status of the several applicants, who are parties to these appeals.

The elaborate opinions of the United States court in the Indian territory by Springer, J., Clayton, J., and Townsend, J., contained in these records, some of which are [492] to be found in the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for 1898, page 479, consider the subject in all its aspects, and set forth the various treaties, tribal constitutions and laws, and the action of the many tribal courts, commissions, and councils which assumed to deal with it, but we have not been called on to go into these matters, as our conclusion is that we are confined to the question of constitutionality merely.

As we hold the entire legislation constitutional, the result is that all the judgments must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice McKenna dissented as to the extent of the jurisdiction of this court only.

APPEAL from a decree of the Court of Ap peals for the District of Columbia affirming the decree of the Supreme Court of that District in favor of the Fenton Metallie Manufacturing Company, plaintiff, and sustaining the validity of a patent issued to Horace J. Hoffman for improvements in storage cases for books and allowing damages in a suit in equity brought by said company against the Office Specialty Manufacturing Co. Reversed, and case remanded, with directions to dismiss the suit.

See same case below, 12 App. D. C. 201. See also Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. Rep. 831, 84 Fed. Rep. 893.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown: This was a bill in equity filed in the supreme court of the District of Columbia by the Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Company against the appellant to recover for the infringement of letters patent number 450,124, issued April 7, 1891, to Horace J. Hoffman for improvements in storage cases for books.

In the specification the patentee declares that "the object of my invention is to facilitate the handling and prevent the abrasion and injury of heavy books, etc. It consists. essentially, of the peculiar arrangement of [493] the guiding and supporting rollers, and of the peculiarities in the construction of the case and shelves hereinafter specifically set forth."

The following drawing of one of the shelves exhibits the peculiar features of the invention. The drawing explains itself so perfectly that no excerpt from the specification is necessary to an understanding of the claims.

The two claims alleged to have been infringed are as follows:

"1. In a storage case for books, etc., the combination of a supporting rack or shelf composed of metallic strips and having a reentrant bend or recess in its front edge and rollers journaled in said rack and projecting above and in front of the same on each side scribed. of said bend or recess, substantially as de

"2. In a book shelf, the combination of a supporting frame, a series of horizontal roiiers, the front roller in two separated sections, the intermediate part of the frame being carried back to permit the admission of the hand between said roller sections, substantially as described."

The defendant, the Office Specialty Manufacturing Company, was the assignee,