np rlnr1 provided with a groove or channel, b, (see figures 1 and 5,) the tongue heing directed and laid into the groove, as seen in figure 3. A pressure-roller, or other device, now bears on the outside of the raised joint thus produced, whereby it is flattened down, the joint being formed of four thicknesses of metal."
In this description the patentee undertakes to state briefly the characteristics of a machine which he says he has invented and intends to patent. He had invented such a machine, and did afterwards patent it. Now, whether this general description of his machine was sufficient to enable others to make his pipe is a question for those skilled in the art; and there is not a word in the record, so far as I know, and there is certainly none in the briefs or arguments on either side, to throw the slightest doubt upon the sufficiency of this description; and, in the complainant's case, there is affirmative evidence that it is sufficient, and its sufficiency was conceded in the argument for the defendants. I therefore decide that the patent of Ritchie for the new article is valid. Of the infringement there is no question. Decree for the complainant.
Wircuit Uourt, D. Massachusetts.
An article produced by a process which was previously known, but used for . a somewhat different purpose and }vith different results, is patel1table.
·Where the question of anticipation is raised, and three different and variant decisions were shown and an interference declared, and the decision of the district court was pending on appeal to the circuit court, this cOllrt will retain the bill until the trial of the former suit, and decision upon the· question is rendered.
In Equity. Oausten Browne, for complainant. Stillman B. Allen and Willis B. Allen, for defendant. Before LOWELL, U. J., and NELSON, D. J. LOWELL,O.J.. The piaintiff applied for a patent, June 24,1875, which wa.s granted Septembe;r 7, 1875, No. 167,455, for a new cle of manufa.cture, "a rubber ha.yipg,
CUTTER TOWER CO.
surfaces, all substantially as described." The specification declares that the blocks of India rubber,-that is, vulcanized India rubber,-as usually made at that time, did not operate properly to remove the lead-pencil marks until the glazed or hardened or smoothed surface was worn off; and that the object of the invention was to produce lit soft, velyet-like, erasing surface. Thi's is to be done by placing anum· ber of blocks of suitable size and shape in a barrel or box, which is rapidly revolved until the required surface is produced. This operation, which is called tumbling, was applied to manufactures of India rubber before the date of the patent, but for a somewhat different purpose, and with somewhat different results. It seems to us, as at present advised, that the article produced by this process was patentable. The answer avers that Levi L. Tower, president of the defendant company, made the invention himself and gave it to the pla.intiff; but the evidence does not support this defence. . Another alleged anticipation is that of Francis H. Holton.' Holton applied June 9, 1877, to have this invention patented to him,. alleging that he had made it earlier than Lockwood. An interference· was declared, and three different and variant decisions were made. The examiners held that Holton had not proved himself to be the first inventor; the commissioner held that he had, but had permitted his invention to go into public use more than two years before his application; the district court decided that Holton had not permitted such public use. A patent was accordingly issued October 19, 1880, more than three years after the application, and the patent is now the property of Orestes Cleveland, of Jersey City. November 2, 1880, the plaintiff filed his bill in the circuit court of ,the United States for the district of New Jersey against Orestes Cleveland, to repeal the Holton patent, alleging that Lockwood was himself first to invent the article, and that the invention was in public use more than two years before Holton's application.· We consider that our duty will be best performed by retaining; this bill, without deciding the issues between the presentcoIitestants, until the plaintiff has had an opportunity to try his case against Cleveland; for the reason that the suit in New Jersey must, in all probability, bring about a final decision between the owners of the conflicting patents,_aresult which can hardly be exptjcted to follow from any decree which we may· give in this case. . If we should: :hold: that Lockwood was the first to make this invention, Cleveland would n<:>t be bound by our decision; and if we should hold that Holton .
was the first in the field, there would still remain the qnestion whether Lockwood ·had not put the invention into public use .morethan two years before Holton applied for his patent. Upon this record it is clear that he did; but the question is not one of the issues in this case, and therefore H would be unfair to take this record as. the final one upon the point. Ordered accordingly.
SCOTT and others v. EVANS.
(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Penn811Ztw,nia. May 16,1882.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-DIFFERENT FORM-NoT AN INFRINGEMENT.
Where the plaintiff's patent was for an earthenware saucepan having a bottom dome-shaped, and of uniform thickness, and defendant's manufacture was an earthenware saucepan with corrugated ridges at the bottom, and not. of the same specific form as that of the plaintiff, there is no infringement.
SAME-STATE OF THE ART-RESTRICTION OF CLAIM.
Where the prior state of the art is such that the field of invention is eircumecribed, the invention of the patentee must be confined strictly to the description, of article as set forth in his claim.
Bakewell Kf.rr and George H. Ohristy, for complainants. M. D. Legett et 00., for respondent.
ACHESON, D. J. This suit is for the infringement of letters patenl No. 225,492, granted to the plaintiffs on March 16, 1880, for an improvement in earthenware saucepans. The patent has two claims, the second of which covers the entire saucepan as described in the specification. At the argument it was conceded that the defendants. have not infringed this claim. It therefore is not in contest, and need not be further mentioned. The first claim, which it is contended the defendants have is in these words: "(1) An earthenware saucepan, the bottom of which is rounded, and has a regular surface of or about an equal thickness throughout, substantially as and for the purpose described." The answer denies that there is any patentanle novelty in the plaintiffs' invention, and also denies infringement. It is certainly true that the plaintiffs were net the first to discover the advantages which earthenware vessels possess over metallic vessels for some kinds of cooking. Earthenware stewpans ofvari()us forms, as the proofs abundantly show, had been in common use long