an application filed December 12, 1881. for·an, improvement in shirts. The drawing annexed to the patent in suit shows a striped front. and a striped collar, and an unstriped body. This patternhas,a given effect on the eye. Another shirt, having no stripes, may yet have the pattern of its body different from the pattern of its front and collar, and be a different design in fact from that shown in such drllwing, and yet be within the terms of the claim of the patent. The particular shirt complained of as an infringement has no such appearance, to the eye as the one shown in the drawing annexed to the patent, except that its front and collar are of a different pattern from the body; so that, if the claim were to be limited to the design shown in the drawing, and were to be held valid so construed, there would be no infringement. The motion is denied.
BALI, GWVE F AS'.rENING
(Oircuit Oourt, D. MassaclwscUs.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs-PmORSTATE OF THE AUT.
The spring-flanged eyelet, combined with the dome-shaped cap having II button-like appearance, claimed in letters patent Nos, 290,057 and 306,021, issued for glove fasteners. is an improvement on former English and American patents, and the prior state of ;the art, as shown by them, does not limit the patentee to the exact form of device described in his patents.
In Equity. On bill for injunction and accounting. W. B. H. Dowse and John R. BMnett, for complainant. T. W: Clarke and F. P. Fish, for defendant.
COLT. J. When this case was heard on motion fo1' injunction, (36 Fed. Rep. 309.) the questions which are now raised were ably argued by counsel and carefully considered by the court. I see no reason upon the additional evidence now before me to change the conclusions then reached. The present hearing only tends to make it clearer to my mind that, under the license which the defendant took of the Kraetzer patents, it has no right to take the position that the Mead fastener, which it makes, is outside of those patents, because an examination shows that the Mead fastE'ner contains certain vital and important elements of the Kraetzer inventions. The defendant is right in saying that it is privileged to make the Mead fastener if it is no infringement of the patents covered by the license, but the difficulty is that the Mead fastener seems clearly to infringe certain claims of the Kraetzer patents.· I have compared the two devices in the opinion 011 motion for an injunction, and I do not think it necessary to go over the same ground again. I have reviewed once more the prior state of the art as bearing on the question of limiting Kraetzer to the precise form of devices described in his patents. In the spring-flanged eyelet, combined with the dome-shaped cap having a button-like appearance, of Kraetzer, there is found a marked
PENINSULAR NOVELTY CO. V. AMERICAN SHOE-TIP CO.
improvement over the prior English patents of $chloss and Bayer, and the American patents shown in the present record, and I do not disctivet anything in those patents which should limit Kraetzer to the exact form of devices which he patented, and, while the changes made in defendant's fastener may be an improvel11lmt upon Kraetzer, that fastener is none the less an infringement uf the Kraetzer, patents. Decree for complainant. '
V. AMERICAN SHOE-TIP
Co. et al."
(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
September 4, 1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVEN'rIONS-INFRINGEMENT-BuTTON-SETTDfG INSTRUMENT.
The invention described in letters patent No. 293,234, issued February 12, 1884, to Charles H. Eg,gleston, is a button-setting instrument, which fastens buttons with metallic staples strung in the eye aud clinched au the opposite side of the fabric, the feature being a guide to receive a staple and attached button and hold them in place while being fastened. 'I'his guide has .a groove to inclose the outer sides of the staple-legs, a slot to embrace the sides of the button-eye between the staple and the button, and a groove in its rear for that portion of the button-eye which extends behind the crown of the staple. It also has clinching dies for operating on tile points of the staple, towards and from which aguide moves to admit the insertion of the fabric to which the button is fastened. Defendants' machine is made according to letters patent No. 371.632, issued to Ira J. Sauuders. At its top is a button and staple reservoir, with many channels, each holding an upright row of buttons with staples inserted in the eyes. The reservoir can be partially revolved by hand, so that one of the channels will communicate with a single lower one, into which the buttons and staples fall. This channel is cut away at the rear, near the bottom. where a driver is inserted to drive the staple and then with· drawn. The driver is substantially like the Eggleston driver, and moves in a right angle towards the anvil through the guide. The guide is also substantiallylike the Eggleston guide, being a rectangular tube, with a slot to receive the shank of the button, and moves up and down towards the anvil against which the staple is clinched. Held, that defendants' machine is an infringement of the Eggleston patent. The invention described in letters patent No. 312,987, issued February 24, 1885, to Edward O. Ely, is a /llachine for presenting buttons. and staples automatically to a guide. united with a stationary channel in which a number of buttons and staples are held, and from which they slide downward. The guide is funnel-shaped, and so narrow at the bottom that the staple will not drop out, but must.be forced ont by the driver. Its rear wall is inclined outward at tbe top, and its Sides inclined inward as they descend, so as to pinch the staple-legs towards each other. A movable guide receives the legs of the staple and guides thelIl into alignment with the path of the driver, In defendant's machine the cbannelllnd guide are in the same line, and the gnide is of tbe same bore thr'oughout, but in order to prevent the staple from dropping out there is applied to the bottom of the gnide an oscillati.ng finger. Complainant bases its charge of infringement on clailllil 3 and 6 of tbe patent, which include as elements of the combinations 'the guide and raceway. Held, that defendant's machine does not infringe the Ely patent.
As the Eggleston machine is not merely one for inserting and clinching metallic staples, but is a device to insert and clinch staples with buttol).sattached, and, as prior inventions will not set staples with buttons, it .cannot be held that the Eggleston button-setting machine is anticipated by the MeGillpatenl of 1879, or, ptbers. of that class, for setting and clinching metallic