'largement of the system so as to adapt it to the needs of a much larger newspaper, by the use of a greater number of lettered hooks, and the lettering of the galleys instead of their being designated by rule of the office and in the memory of the compositor. The description of the invention which was given by the patentee upon his cross examination is as follows:
"When the compositor has emptied his type on the galley, he is instructed' by my invention, 149,092, to deposit his copy on a receptacle corresponding to the galley where his matter is, or corresponding to the take-mark on his copy and thereby keep the copy for that galley or article distinct and separate from all other copy or matter, for the more immediate convenience of the proof-reader, and without the labor usually entailed on a copy-sorter."
The invention thus described was substantially used in the Sun of. fice, and the patented improvement was a convenient modification of, but not a substantial advance upon, the Sun', system. Believing that the invention was not patentable, I have not exam· ined the question of infringement. The bill is dismissed.
WONG TOWN ON.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oalifornia.
February 4, 1884.)
PATENTS-COMBINATION OF SEPARATE DEVICES-SUBOOMBINATION.
The fact that a device, comprising several patentable elements, has been pat· ented as a whole, will not prevent the patentee from afterwards securing a patent for a combination of any number of the elements less than the Whole, prOVided he appplies for it before the lesser combination has been two vears in public use.
In Equity. M. A. Wheaton, for complainant. J. L. Boone, contra. SAWYER, J., (orally.) This action is upon a patent. The patent consists of lapping over two pieces of leather in making the seam of a boot or any other work of the kind, running a line of rivets along, and then a line of stitching on each side of the line of rivets, so as to make a compact, tight seam. The plea sets up that the patentee in this case, on a prior occasion, procured a patent, and that this other and prior patent is for the Bame thing, with the addition of a piece .of India rubber inserted between the two pieces of leather. The strip of India rubber having been inserted, a line of rivets is run along with two lines of stitching, one on each side of, the line of rivets, in the same manner as in the second patent. The defendant claims that the second patent is not a new invention; that it is merely a combination of a part of the elements of the first patent, or of the prior invention, and therefore that the second patent is void. as not covering
OARNV. WONG TOWN OM.
OLOUOESTER ISINGLASS &; GLUE CO.
v. BROOKS a.nd others.
Oircuit Oourt D. MQ,8sachU8etts.
J.. PATENTS-EXTRACTION OF GELATINE FROM FISH-SKINS.
Letters patent No. 167,123, for a process. of extracting gelatine from fishskins; sustained against letters No. 177,764, granted to another person for a like process, and the latter held to be an infringement. The decisions of the commissioner of patents, though entitled to great weight uP9n questions of priority, are not conclusive.
2. SAME-DECISIONS OF THE PATENT-OFFICE.
In Equity. Browne, Holmes et Browne, for complainant. James E. Maynodier, for defendant. NELSON, J. The original of the plaintiff's patent was granted to John S. Rogers, August 24, 187:5, No. 167,123, for a new and useful process of extracting gelatine or ichthyocolla from salted fish-skins. It was reis8uedJunel, 1880, No. 9,226, and again reissued July 13, 1880, No. 9,296. The in\Tention has proved of great value commercially, and it has certainly the t;nerit of patentability. It is also new, unless it was anticipated by Isaac Stanwood, to whom a patent was granted for the same process, May 23,1876, No. 177,764, and reissued May 17,1881, No.9,715. The specifications and cl!:lims ofboth the original and reissued patent/'! of Rogers are the same in substance, the difference between them in phraseology being slight and imma· to be this: material. In the second reissue he states the
"My invention is to utilize such salted skins of fish; and incanying it out the first portion of it is to desalt the skins, such portion of the process causing the removal of the scales from .the skins, it being accomplished by soaking the skins in cool water, and agitating them therein sufficiently to extract the salt froni them. 'rhe water should be changed repeatedly until the salt may have been separated from the skins, after which they are to be put into fresh watel', which should be gradually heated to a boiling temperature. and kept so for three hours, more or less, until the gelatine may have been sufficiently extracted from the skins by the water so heated. Next, the superfluous matt(lr:or matters should be removed from the gelatinouB ;:wlution now procured, and it (the gelatinous solution) should be strained or filtered in order to obtain it in a purified state. Finally, the'liquid is to be suitably evaporated by introducing the solution into pans or moulds, or upon slabs, and exposing to the atmosphere until it may.be sufficiently condenSed for use, whether as an article of food or as a glue for mechanical purposes."
His claim is :
"The process, substantially as described, of obtaining gelatine from salted fish-skins, it consisting in desalting and boiling them, separating from the gelatinous solution so obtained the superfluous matter or matters, and reducing it (the solution) by evaporation to the necessary consistency for use, as set forth."
The evidence shows that in the years 1872 and 1873 an extensive business was carried on in Gloucel:lter, in the preparation of what is