venied a particular form of wooden bu'shing encased in an iron one, and took a patent for that, describing no other. The 'reissue is for any form of wooden bushing iIi an iron one;' that is, for an invention not described in the original. If he had discovered, as he now has, that other forms were useful, he might doubtless have had a patent covering them, or, if he had described them in his patent, had a valid reissue covering them; but he did not do either. Let there be a decree dismissing the bill, with costs.
CAREY and others.
(Oircuit Court, N. D. lllinoi8.
In Chancery. Merriam et Whipple, for complainant. Wood et Cunningham and West et Bond, for defendants. BLODGlllTT, D. J. rrhis is a bill for infringement of patent No. 170,809, granted to Nelson J. Blatherwick, the complainant, under date of December 7,1875, for an improvement in horseshoes, and reaching back by caveat to October 21, 1874. 'rhe object of the invention is declared in the specifications to be the construction of a shoe to prevent horses from interfering, and the end is said to be obtained.. By making the shoe broader and fuller upon the inside than upon the outside, enlarging it at the toe and upon the inside, thus increasing the support for the horse at that point, the effect of which is that in traveling this point is the last to leave the ground, and the tend('nr.y is to throw the ankle of the horse outward and away from the opposite h!g, instead of inward and towards it, and when the foot leaves the ground it follows this position of the. ankle, and is thrown away frOID rather than towards tlHJ ol\pqsite leg. When the ankle is in this position the opposite hoof can pass without interfering."
The drawing (figure 1) shows carried forward so as to projept
inside fore quarter of the shoe· the wall of the hoof to such an
extent that the projection beyond the hoof would be at least three. fourths of an inch in an average full-sized shoe,and the outside periphery or rim of the shoe" is carried back from the point of the projection nearly in a straight line to the beginning of the hind quarter-that is, to the point where the hoof begins to curve in towards the heel; and when a toe calk is used, it lato be located upon the corner or angle thus jected from the inner fore quarter-that is, considerably to one side of -the shoe, and coming to or nearly to the outer edge thereof. In other words, the' apparent purpose' of this device is to practically change the location of the horse's toe from the point of the hoof to this projection inside of the natural toe or forward point of the hoof. The object of thellevice, and its mode of operation, are quite clearly described by Mr. Powers, complainant's expert, who says:
.. The patent shoe is carried forward on its inner side, from the widest part of the foot, in nearly a 'straight 'line to and even with the front of the foot, and this forward extension, when the foot tips forward upon the toe in the act of moving, continues the longest in contact with the ground, or leaves the ground last. The effect of this construction and motion is to cause the foot, in its forward progress, to swing or tumble upon this extended point outward, and, to a certain extent, removing the passing foot and leg of the horse from the other leg standing on the ground, thus preventing the mov· ing foot from hitting the opposite stationary one. Each opposite foot, being provided with one of these shoes, in turn tumbles out on this point of the shoe, and thus escapes the other, Of does not interfere."
The only questions made in the defence which I deem it necessary to consider are: (1) The construction to be given this patent; (2) whether defendants infringe. The proof shows, and it was admitted on the argument to be true, that horseshoes to prevent. interfering had been made lmd used, long prior to time when Blatherwick claims to have made this invention, where the iriner fore quarter was curved or bent much more sharply than the natural curve of the hoof, and the toe calk placed upon this sharp curve or angle so that the bearing of the toe'was upon this calk nearly in a line with the inside bar of the shoe. This is clearly shown by the testimony of John Palmer, A. W. Redner, Thomas Leggett, Michael McNurney, John Trainor, Thomas Cody, and others. Indeed, it may be taken as a proven and an admitted fact in this case that horseshoes, for tho purpose of preventing interfering, had' been made and used before complainantenterEJdthefield,whenan'attempt, at least, had been made to change the bearing of the toe to a point inside of the natural or tip of the hoof. ' This inventor did more than this, and made a new and artificial
toe, inside of the natural one, by curving the shoe almost at a right angle from the natural toe or point of the hoof to a point nearly as far inward-that is, towards the other foot-as the widest part of the hoof, and extending back from this point to the heel, so that the inner fore quarter of the shoe was nearly a right angle, rather than a curve corresponding to the shape of the foot. The necessary effect of this shape is to make the angle of the shoe, as I have already said, to project beyond the wall of the hoof, and this projection forms ihe tumbling point, as Mr. Powers calls it, or point which last leaves the ground in the act of stepping. In the light of the testimony as to the stfLte of this art at the time Blatherwick made his invention, J have no doubt this projection beyond thl:j wall of the hoof must be ,deemed the distinctive feature of his patent; and that he evidently intended this should be so is shown by his drawing, 1, .the. location of the nailhead channei is such as clearly demonstmtes that the corner or angle would project beyond the hoof. With-this construction of the !lomplainant's patent it is qnite evident that defendants do not infringe, for their shoe (complainant's exhibit 1) has no projection thl! wall of the hoof. It seems to me to be, in all substantial like the shoes made and used by }lalmer, Trainor, and others long prior to complainant's invention. It places the toe calk inside the line of the point of the hoof, and ·thereby transfers the bearing from the toe, but does not project or bear beyond the line of the hoof. It is urged that defendants called the form of shoe whbh they used Shoe," and it also appears that defendants at one the time held a license from complainant; but this does not amount to an estoppel on defendants to deny infringement, and only proves that for a time at least defendants conceded to complainant the broad claim now insisted on in this case: that the patent covers all shoes where the tumbling point is changed to a point inside the line of the natural toe. Not being now acting under a license, defendants are not bound by any implied admission from the fact of having once taken a license. r therefore conclude that defendants do not, by the use of the shoe shown in the proof to have been made by them, infringe complainant's patent, and the bill will be dismissed at complainant's cost.
J. M. W. JONES STATIONERY & PRINTING CO.
(Circuit Court, N.
October 31, 1881.)
Letters patent No. 217,909, issued July 29,1879, to' Frederick W. Smith and James S. Shannon, for an improvement in paper· holders, valid and infringed, as to' claims, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, by the defendant's device.
Jesse Cox and Homer N. Hibbard, for complainant. N. C. Gridley, for defendant. ' BLODGETT, D. J. This is a suit for injunction and damages for an alleged infringement, by defendant, of patent No. 217,909, issued July 29, 1879, to Frederick W. Smith and James .s.Shannon, and which is now, held bycomplaillant, for an "improvement in holders." The defence, set upis, want of novelty and nqn-infringemeJ;l,t The character and scope, of the i;nvention are set out by the patentees in their specifications !itS follows: ,i
.. " Our to that class of pape)) files or temporary binders adapted, by having separable uniting wires, to, allow o(the withdrawal of ;IDl one of many papers. thereon held, or the insertion of papers between those liiready 'on file, without disturbing the order in which the others are placed. The' object of our invention is to provide a file more prompt and positive iii its action, less ealculated to tear the papers filed thereon; more oonvenient of manipu]atioll,&nd adapted,-in double form especially, to serve asa Writing tljoblet for theJap or desk. It consists in a paper-holdj3r with parallel the fixed wires and In0Yhinged transfer wires, made from one piece, able wires secured to the same conriecting plate, whereby those parts may be separately packed and attached. to any desired base-board in tlie structUle of the puncturing wire; in a felt or plush covering for the bottom of the baseboard; in the stop to limit the movement of the hinged wires. Figure 1 is a perspective view of a double or duplex file applied to a tablet, showing the fixed wires as being tubular and the movable wires solid. It also shows the movable or transfer wires formed of a single piece of wire, bent, in its con· necting or horizontal position, in the shape of a crank, and hinged near. its angles.'" .
Another feature of the device, as described and claimed, is that the fixed and movable wires are attached to a single plate, removable from the tablet, which allows the parts to be separately packed for transportation. The leading idea of this device is the two puncturing spindles, and the transfer wires, so arranged to operate with each other as to forin two continuous parallel rings, upon which papers may be held in place, and yet permit the easy opening of the rings for the removal or insertion of a paper, without the displacement of the others. Standards or spindles for holding papers in place are old,