art discloses, that there was no exercise of the inventive faculty in the production of this block. An examination of the records in the two eases shows that the evidence before J udgeW AJ.LACE in the case of Travers v. Beyer, 26 Fed. Rep. 450, was not the same as in this 'Case. It follows that the bill should be dismissed.
August 21. 1889.)
(Oircuit Court, D. jVaaaachuactla.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION.
Letters patent No. 325,430. for improvements in buttons cODsisting in an open central bore for use with spring studs, though all the elements, separately considered. are found in prior patents for ordinary buttons, are valid, the combination being new, and producing an improved result. Such patent is infringed by a fastener in which the cap is set by pressingdown the edges so as to do away with the filling for the cap, as described in the patent, the fastener being the same with some slight changes in construction.
In Equity. Bill to enjoin infringement of patent. W. B. H. Dowse, for complainant. Harry E. Knight, for defendants. COLT, J. This is a bill brought for the alleged infringement ofletters patent No. 325,430, issued September 1, 1885, to Albert G. Mead, for improvements in buttons. The invention consists in certain improvements in glove fasteners of the type known as "metallic fasteners," which have a metallic button-hole member secured to one flap of the glove, with an opening on its under side to receive a spring stud attached to the other flap. It is not claimed that Mead was the first inventor of a fastener composed of a metallic button member and a metallic buttonhole member, but the invention relates to an improved construction in the button-hole member, and especially in the retention of the button finish in fasteners of this type. The specification says: "This invention relates to buttons, more particularly those secured to the fabric or cloth by metallic fastenings, and provided with an open central bore, which adapts them for use especially with spring studs, while in the particu· lar ·button fi nish,' so.called, combined with the central bore; and in the general arrangement and disposition of the several parts with respect to each other, is embodied the subject of my invention." The claims involved in this suit are the first and second: "(1) In a button, provided with a central opening for receiving a spring stud, the of an inclosing cap, a perforated bottom disk, a second disk above the first, the button being attached as a whole to the fabric independent of said stud, substantially as set forth. (2) A convex, imperforate cap inclosing the interior of a button, in combination with a disk to which the
KENT t7. SIMONS.
lower edges of said cap are attached, and which has a central opening. a second disk within said cap, and provided with a central tubular lip, which extends down ward into the central opening of the first disk, and an eyelet for attaching the latter to the fabric, substantially as set forth." The defenses relied upon in this case are anticipation, as shown by prior patents, and non-infringement. As bearing on this question of anticipation, it is neceseary to construe the Mead patent. The defendants insist that the Mead patent is for an improvement in ordinary metal buttons, as shown in figure 3 of the patent, and that its use with a spring stud is only one of the forms in which the button may be used. I cannot accept this construction of the patent. The specification states that the invention relates more particularly to buttons provided with an open central bore, which adapts them for use especially with spring stude, and in the first claim the language is "a button provided. with a central opening for receiving a spring stud." The principal object of the :Mead invention was the production of an improved button adapted for use with a spring stud, and incidental thereto thfJ patentee says that by putting a shank or neck on the button to allow space for the fabric, it may be employed as an ordinary button. Taking this view of the patent, that the invention of Mead is primarily an improvement in metallic fasteners to be used with spring studs, I think the patent is valid. There are many prior patents in this branch of the art, but as to this particular type of button, I think Mead made a patentable improvement over prior buttons of this class. All the elements of the Mead fastener, separately considered, may be found in prior patents for ordinary buttons, or for fasteners composed of a metallic button member, and metallic button-hole member, but the combination as arranged by Mead is new and produces an improved result; that improvement consisting largely in the convenient form of the central opening for recci ving the spring" stud, while at the same time preserving the "button finish." The Mead improvement is manifestly of limited scope in view of the many prior devices, but I do not think it was anticipated by anything found in those devices, and I believe its production, notwithstanding what preceded it in the art, involved the exercise of the inventive iaculty. Upon the' question of infringement I have no doubt. The defendants' fastener i& the Mead fastener, with some slight changes in construction. In defendants' fastener the cap piece is so set by pressing down the edges as to do, away with the necessity of any filling for the cap, such as Mead describes, and which is made an element in the combinations covered by the third and fourth claims of the patent. The present suit is upon claims 1 and 2, and these the defendants' fastener clearly infringes. Decree for complainant.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oonnecticut. August 17, 1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT.
Letters patent No. 233,240, dated October 12. 1880, were issued for an adjust· able dress-form. The form was expanded by means of two opposing braces vertically sliding on a standard, and forming two sides of a triangle. which held the ribs in position. Defendants attached to two rotary collars the links of the lazy tong's, and divided the waistband into four sections, and made the ribs expand in four divisions. The braces in the patent are not merely extension braces, but converge to or towards the same poiut, and secure each otber against rotation. Defendants' braces are extension, and not locking. braces, and are not intended to secure each other against rotation. Held. that there is such a substantial doubt in regard to any infringement by defendants that. a preliminary injunction will not be granted.
In Equity. Motion for preliminary injunction. Payson E. Tucker and Charles F. Perkins, for complainant. John K. Beach, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a motion for a preliminary injunction against the alleged infringement by the deiimdants of the second claim of letters patent No. 233,240, to John Hall, dated October 12, 1880, for an adjustable dress·form. The invention, which is the subject of the second claim, and the claim, are stated in Morss v. Knapp, 37 Fed. Rep. 351, where it is said: "The principle of the invention is the expansion or adjustment of a skeleton frame radially, in all directions, from a common center. A central pole, or standard, supports the entire form. In the part which supports the skirt, upright, thin, elastic ribs are held towards the standard by elastic bands secured to each rib. There are two series of oppositely inclined braces, one above the other. Those of the upper series are hung by their inner ends to a collar on the standard, and, extending obliquely downward, are hinged to the respective ribs. The braces of the lower series are hinged by their inner ends to a lower collar on the standard, and, extending obliquely upward, are hinged to the ribs at the point where the members of the upper series are hinged. The two collars, called ·sliding blocks,' are adjustable. When the form req uires expansion, the lower collar is elevated, which expands the lower series, but the expansion is governed by the opposing action of the upper series, which compels the movement of the ribs to be substantially parallel with the central standard. " The mechanism is like that of the old-fashioned reel or "swift" for winding yarn. The expanding mechanism of the defendants' form, which is alleged to infringe, is thus described: Ii "consists of two concentric disks arranged upon a common axis, upon which they may independently rotate. Out.side of these disks there is a waistband divided into four segments, and each segment is connected with the disks by means of two links, one link from each segment being hinged to the upper disk, and the other link of each segment being hinged to the lower disk." When the dress·form is in a closed position, the most convenient way to expand it "is for the operator to take hold of two opposite segments of