of organic substance relatively more of the active principle chymosin than Hunsen's powder, with a larger bulk of organic substance. While, therefore, Blumenthal seems to purify more thoroughly, Hansen, who seems not to dQ so, retains, perhaps, along with the undesirable bulk of foreign organic substaace, abo solutely a little more chymosin. "
This testimony, coupled with the clear proof of the Hansen method of manufacture, is adequate to show that the defendants' tablets are not the pure chymosin which is described in the Blumenthal patent for a new article of manufacture. Thay do not contain a greatly excessive amount of pepsin or of organic matter, but the difference is fllifficiently marked to show that the claims of the patent No. 344,433 have not been infringed. The two important facts in the case are that the defendants' article was not made by the patented process, and that the cruder and less careful process of Hansen produces a correspondingly less pure result than that of Blumenthal, though it is probably sufficiently complete to accomplish beneficially its office in the manufacture of cheese. ' The decrees of the circuit court are affirmed.
SAUNDERS et a1. v. ALLEN. «Circuit Court,S. D. New York. November 29, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-PIPE CUTTERS.
Claim 2 of reissued letters patent No. 10,121, issued January 31, 1882, to Andrew Saunders, for a pipe cutter, consisting of a stock, rotary cutters, antifriction rollers, arm, and feeding screw, is void for want of invention; for rotary cutters were well-known substitutes for knife cutters, and every element in the combination had theretofore been patented in the same place, as is shown by the following patents: No. 52.715, to William S. Haworth, Jan· uary 20,1866; No. 65,066, to Theodore S. Foster, May 28,1867; No. 67,580, to Henry, Getty, August 6, 1867. 2.
In a suit for infringement. the defense of anticipation is not sufficiently set out by an answer which merely avers that the invention had been fully described and publicly made known in several patents, among them those of two persons named, stating the names and dates, without directly averring that the invention had been before patented; for an invention might be publicly made known by a patent, and not be patented. But where. under -such an answer, the patents referred to by it have been received in evidence without objection. and without subsequent motion to suppress, the right to object thereto is waived..
In Equity. Suit by AIexandel' Saunders and others against James P. Allen for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed. James A. Whitney, for plaintiffs. Sherman H. Hubbard, for defendant. WHEELER, District Judge. This suit is brought upon patent 'No. 10,021, dated January 31, 1882, for a pipe cutter, consisting of a stock with a jaw at one end, cal1'ying two antifriction rollers to hold the' pipe against a rotary cutter in an arm pivoted to the stock, and forced into, as it is moved around, the pipe, by a screw through the stock lengthwise, working against the arm. The second claim al· leged to be infringed is: for a combination of the stock, cutter, rollers,
a.ntl:feedmgscrew;n' Suc1J.pipe .clltter$werp. well 'knowilbefore A that, ft tworoill place of the &ntlfrlctlOJ:). and other cutter was held in a frame in the stock, instead, of a pivoted arm, against WmcQ.rPJ,escrew worked, February 20, 1866" to William S.. Howa.rth; a.nd ano,ther, for one like, this, except armwas.'acutting knife, :was granted to Theodore S. FQsWi'Ida.ted May 28, 1867, 65,066; another, for .except Was in the jaw, and angular, to cut and rollers were in a frame in the stock which' thf3screw :l,V0rked, was granted August ,6, 1867, to and numberel1 ,67,530. Thus rotary cutte:n:Jwere wellkno.'ffliI!lilubstitutes for knifeclltters ; and every element the combiof this cl;tim been patented, in the same .V1ace, for the RWPQBe, as in tb,ispatent. The merely sllbstituted the rotary cutter for the cutting edge of the pivoted al'Ill of Foster, or (letty, and, .the place of the latter for the angular cutter with the rollers, which did not vary the operation of either, nor the result of all. Whether a rotary cutter' would be better than a knife cutter would be a qp.efltip;n .of ju9grp.ent, . and any good workman could change one for the other. Such substitution would not seem to amount to a patentable invention.Olothing Co. 'Y. Glover, 141 U. S. 560, 12 Sup. v. Hard,145 U.S. 241, 12 Sup. ,Ok:Bepd),9. The tool of:the plaintiffs'patent would probably have infringed' Foster's or (Jetty's patent. .The'8.Wlwer does not set forth that this invention was patented to Foster' of Getty, or any' bl1.t only tl,iatit was fully described and publicly made known in several patents, and among them those of Foster and Getty; ttnd their names and the dates 'were, stated. The statutory defense required to be set forth is that the' invention had the ,name a:p.d d:;tte.': 1t might be described and publicly made known by a'patent, ,and not be patented; and this part of the ans",er does not· appeal' to set out sufficiently this .defense. the ,were in evidence without objection,' and no motion h;l,1ill>een Dlcadeto They are in the case, to be considered. All that is required to be given by the statute to· make them a.dmMsible is stated in the answer, except their effect in patenting right to object,to consideration of them according to their legal' e:ttect seems to be well waived. ,Let a decree dismissing the bill be entered.
FEATHERSTONE v. ORMONDE CYCLE CO. et a1. (Circuit Court, B,: D. New York. November 16, 1692.)
1. PA'mNTS ]'OR, INVENTIo1illll""VALIDITY. ,
,,' " . .' ,,
: Reissued patent No. granted lh,rch 24. 1891. to John B.Uuillop. for wlleel tires for cycles, is valid. Featherstone v. Cycle Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 113, r " ! l o w e d . ' :', . ; ", A person wh.o ·is .mployed as managllrofa partnership, and who in that eapac!ty sells which infringe. a is guilty of infringement,
2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT'JiYAN EMPLOYE.