vertical shaft, which revolves horizontally, and carries the can around in contact, at its top, with the lower end of the tool.

There is no suggestion in the specification of the use of the soldering tool, G, as an independent movable hand tool, to be used apart from the machine, and apart from a revolving can. Moreover, the "ring or cup shaped soldering tool, G," as defined by the terms of the specification and claims, is confined to the part lettered G, and does not include the heater, F, or the rod, H, or any of the other parts specified in the fourth claim. The first claim, therefore, in claiming "the ring or cup shaped soldering tool, G, for soldering the caps upon cans, substantially as herein shown and described," claims only the cup-shaped or concave part, which is at the lower end of the heater, F, and wholly below the platform, C, and claims it only as a tool in the machine of the special form defined, and fixed with reference to a revolving can. The defendant has no machine. His entire apparatus is a hand tool, the part of which corresponding to the metallic heater, F, is of wood, and the apparatus is moved and rotated by the hand to do the soldering. Although the part of the apparatus which corresponds to the part, G, of Bishop, is concave, and its edge has a ring shape, yet hand soldering tools with the part corresponding to G, "ring or cup shaped," existed in the prior English patents to Carson and Forbes and Hebert. Hence the part, G, claimed in the first claim, must be limited to that part arranged to work in the machine in the manner described in the specification, and the claim is not infringed by the defendant. The bill is dismissed, with costs.

IMHAUSER v. HAUSBURG.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 2, 1890.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VALIDITY-WATCHMAN'S TIME DETEctor.

Letters patent No. 170,443, issued Nevember 30, 1875, to William Imhauser, for watchman's time detector, is valid, when limited to the combination with a watchman's time detector containing clock-work, paper dial, and apparatus for pricking the same, of mechanism for detecting and recording any illicit opening of the case. 2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.

Said patent is infringed by a device which records the fact of opening in the same way by the prick of a needle on the dial, and in which the needle is operated and moved in the same way as in the patented machine.

In Equity.

Bill by Elise Imhauser against Otto E. Hausburg, for infringement of letters patent No. 170,443, issued November 30, 1875, to William Imhauser, for watchman's time detector.

A. v. Briesen, for complainant.

Edwin H. Brown and James H. Bowen, for defendant.

LACOMBE, J. The prior state of the art does not warrant any broad construction of the complainant's patent. It must be limited to the de

tails of the mechanism described. Though thus limited, however, infringement of it is none the less plain. Both articles (complainant's and defendant's) are watchman's time detectors of the same shape and size, containing clock-work, paper dial, apparatus for pricking the same, and, combined therewith, mechanism for detecting and recording any illicit opening of the case in which the whole apparatus is contained. In both articles the fact of opening is recorded by the prick of a needle on the paper dial. In both the needle is mounted at the free end of a spring, lying parallel with the dial, at a short distance from it; the needle being perpendicular to the paper dial on which it is to make its record. In both articles there is arranged in the hinged cover a projection with notched or cam head. When the cover is opened or closed, this notch or cam, by movement across the free end of the spring, causes the needle to move towards the paper far enough to punch a hole in it. After the cam or notch has passed beyond the free end of the spring, the latter, bearing the needle, resumes its normal position. The similarity between these two structures approaches closely to absolute identity.

When limited to the combination with a watchman's time detector of the particular mechanism above described, the evidence does not disclose any anticipation of complainant's apparatus. Thousands of these articles have been sold; both sides insist that the public accepts them; and there seems to be quite as much invention in devising them as was held sufficient to sustain the patents in Palmer v. Johnston, 34 Fed. Rep. 337; Baldwin v. Conway Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 519; and Safe-Deposit Co. v. Gas-Light Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 273. The evidence of prior public use by Abraham Newman of watchman's clocks with safety locks, anticipating complainant's invention, is unsatisfactory and unconvincing. for complainant.

Decree

BERRYMAN v. AINSWORTH BOILER & PIPE COVERING Co.

(Circuit Court, D. Delaware. January 13, 1890.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-CASING FOR STEAM-PIPE.

The first claim of letters patent No. 276,044, issued to Peter Holt for caps for steam-pipe, April 17, 1883, viz., "the combination of a pipe and pipe-clothing with a cap made in two parts, for embracing both the clothing and pipe," is void, as covering any cap for covering the end of a pipe casing, it being admitted that the longitudinal division of sectional casings for pipes was old.

2. SAME-ANTICIPATION.

The device, consisting of a cap made in two parts, each part consisting of a semiannular piece adapted to fit over the pipe-clothing, a smaller semi-annular piece adapted to fit over the pipe, and a beveled (semi-annular) connecting piece, is anticipated-no novelty being claimed for the longitudinal division-by patent to Harris 71,300, November 26, 1867, which shows a protective jacket, with one cylindrical portion embracing the pipe, and another the non-conducting material, and a conical connecting portion, and by model of patent to Riker 159,452, February 2, 1875, showing a metallic cap for embracing pipe-coverings.

In Equity. On final hearing. Bill by Samual H. Berryman to restrain the infringement of patent No. 276,044.

Jerome Carty, for complainant.

Henry C. Conrad and Arthur S. Browne, for defendant.

WALES, J. This suit is brought for the infringement of letters patent No. 276,044, dated April 17, 1883, issued to Peter Holt for "a new and useful improvement in caps for steam-pipe clothing," and by him assigned to the complainant. The first claim of the patent, and which is the only one involved in this controversy, reads as follows: "The combination of a pipe and pipe-clothing with a cap, D, made in two parts, for embracing both clothing and pipe, substantially as set forth." fringement is alleged in reference to this claim and to no other. The complainant contends that this claim covers broadly the idea and device of a new combination in the state of the art for preventing the disintegration of the ends of the non-conducting clothing with which steam or hot-air pipes are often covered. The defense is anticipation and noninfringement.

Various methods and contrivances had been in use, long before the date of Holt's patent, for covering steam and other pipes, in order to prevent the radiation of heat from steam-pipes, and to prevent freezing in water-pipes. The ordinary method was to surround the pipe with a covering composed of non-conducting material, such as hair, felt, or asbestos, secured to the pipe by means of an exterior canvas or metallic covering. In adjusting this covering at the joints of a pipe, or where it was desirable to have access thereto, or at any points in the pipe where branches were let off, it became necessary that a portion of the covering should be removed so that the pipe could be laid bare. Such exposed ends or portions of the covering had to be protected to prevent the ends from disintegrating and falling out. The usual means, employed were to tie down the exterior canvas over the end of the covering, and bind it down to the pipe by twine or wire. Numerous devices and expedients have been invented for the purpose of effectually covering such pipes, and many patents were produced in evidence by the defendant to show what was old in this line at the date of the application for the Holt patent. The specification in the Holt patent describes his device and its object as follows:

"My invention, however, is not restricted to any kind of clothing, for all modern pipe-wrappings are apt to become disintegrated at the points where they are necessarily cut away for exposing the pipe wherever it is necessary to make attachments thereto. In order to prevent this, I use an annular cap, D, made in two exactly similar parts, as best observed in the prospective view. Fig. 3, each part consisting of a semi-annular piece, d, adapted to fit on the outside of the non-conducting clothing, a smaller semi-annular piece, e, to fit to the pipe, and the beveled connecting piece, f; the whole being preferably composed of sheet or cast metal, and provided with lugs receiving bolts by which the two parts are secured together, so as to inclose the clothing of the pipe at and near the end of the same. The intermediate beveled piece of one or both parts of the cap is of such a length that the beveled piece of one will overlap that of the other, thereby preventing all exposure of the end of the clothing, which, being thus contained within the cap, is not liable to be disintegrated."

The defendant's device, and for which letters patent No. 340,073, dated April 20, 1886, were secured, consists of a casing for pipes, and is composed of two cylindrical sections of sheet-metal, each section being made of two half cylinders, which are placed around the pipe to be inclosed, with their edges meeting. Adjacent sections overlap each other, as in the case of ordinary stove-pipe sections. The longitudinal edges of the halves of each section are bent outwardly, and locked together by strips of sheet-metal which have their edges bent inward. When the casing 'has thus been put around the pipe, the space between them is filled with a suitable non-conducting packing, such as asbestos or mineral wool. In order to permit access to the joints of a pipe without removing the casing, they are left exposed, and the casing is reduced at these points by a reduced section which is conical in shape, being, at its smaller end, of the diameter of the pipe, and expanding at its larger end to the dimensions of the rest of the casing. This reduced section is composed of two parts, which are locked together in the same manner as those of the cylindrical sections. No novelty is claimed for the manner of constructing or adjusting these outer casings, except at those points where it may be necessary to separate the joints of a pipe, or to lower it without removing the casing or disturbing the ends of the clothing. It is admitted, also, that the longitudinal division of the sectional casings and of the caps is not of modern invention.

The only question, then, is, does the Holt cap come within the definition of a "new and useful improvement," in view of the prior state of the art? The first claim, as broadly made and insisted on by the complainant, includes everything in the nature of a cap for covering the end of a pipe casing. In other words, the Holt patent is made to include a cap which would fit over the end of a casing like the circular cover or top of a pill-box, with a hole in the center for the pipe to pass through. Substitute metal for paper, and the cap and the cover are essentially the same. Such a construction of the claim goes very far, and practically defeats itself, as not being within the meaning of a "new and useful improvement." But, apart from this, it is very clear, from an examination of the defendant's exhibits, that the device of Holt, or its equivalent, had been in use before he made his application. The Harris patent, No. 71,300, dated November 26, 1867, for "fire-proof packing for smoke and hot-air flues," (defendant's Exhibit No. 10,) shows a protecting jacket which has one cylindrical portion embracing the pipe, and another cylindrical portion en bracing the non-conducting material, and a conical uniting portion, thus constituting a cap protecting the end of the covering. The only distinction between this jacket, in the Harris patent, and the Holt cap, is that the latter is composed of two parts having longitudinal joints, and the former is made in one piece. As already stated, no novelty is claimed for making the cap in two pieces. The Riker patent No. 159,452, dated February 2, 1875, for "improvement in non-conducting coverings," (defendant's Exhibit No. 14,) is accompanied by a model which shows a metallic cap for protecting pipe-coverings which embraces the pipe and the pipe-covering in the same sense that the dev.40F.no.i5-56

Decreed ac

fendant's cap embraces both. There is therefore no originality in the Holt cap, and the complainant's bill must be dismissed. cordingly.

REED et al. v. SMITH et al.

(Circuit Court, E. D. Michigan. January 6, 1890.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-HARROWS. The first claim of patent numbered 201,946, to De Witt C. Reed, for an improvement in harrows, covers the combination of a harrow frame and harrow tooth secured therein, so as to be longitudinally adjusted, and a fastening clip, constructed with two biting edges bearing against the tooth, the object of which is to hold it more rigidly in position than would be possible if the pressure were uniformly exerted over the whole width of the clip.

2. SAME.

In view of the state of the art, and of the limitations put by the patent-office upon the patentee's original claim, the second claim is restricted to the combination with a harrow frame, provided with a curved seat, of a curved tooth, and such a clip as is described in the first claim.

3. SAME-INVENTION.

The use of a curved tooth resting upon a curved seat had previously existed in a horse-rake, and the application of this device to a harrow is not invention. 4. SAME-INFRINGEMENT-USE OF EQUIVALENTS.

While the defendants did not literally infringe upon the Reed patent, since their clip was flat, and the seat was not curved, yet it was held that, giving the patentee the full benefit of the doctrine of mechanical equivalents, the three straight lines used by the defendants to form the arc of a circle were the equivalent of the curved. line. In order that the working end of the harrow tooth be raised or depressed, it is necessary that the other end be curved, and it is desirable that it should rest upon a seat more or less curved; but whether this seat be a literal curve, or a series of straight lines, the general effect of which is a curve, is of no importance. Held, the defendants obtained the full benefit of the curved clip by the peculiar conformation of the seat with two shoulders, which performed the same function as the biting edges of the clip.

5. SAME.

The valuable feature in the patent is the two biting edges of the clip; and it makes no difference whether those biting edges are used as a seat with a straight clip bearing on the opposite surface, and between them, or whether a curved seat is used conforming to the shape of the tooth, and the biting edge clip on the opposite side. Held, therefore, that the second claim was infringed by the defendants. (Syllabus by the Court.)

In Equity.

This was a bill in equity to recover for the infringement of letters patent No. 201,946, to De Witt C. Reed, for an improvement in harrows. His invention is described as consisting in a novel means for adjusting a spring tooth so as to give to its point a greater or less depth of cut, by making that portion of the tooth adjacent to the frame curved, and resting on a curved seat, securing it thereto by a clip, or its equivalent. The only substantial defense in the case was non-infringement. The cause was submitted to the court upon pleadings and proofs. Howard & Roos and N. H. Stewart, for plaintiffs.

Parker & Burton, for defendants.

BROWN, J., The many adjudications which have been made in this and other states sustaining this patent obviate the necessity of our con