ALBANY STEAM: TRAP
invalidate the patent, and as it does not, the patent stands as valid. The infringement seems to be clear, unless the patent is limited to the particular mode of reticulation described. The pillars of the fabric appear to be precisely like those of the patent. The reticulation appears to be in all respects the equivalent of that of the patent. The pillars are really the principal things, and the substance of the invention appears to be taken. Let there be a decree for the orators accordingly for an injunction and account in each case, without costs, except on the accounting.
ALBANY STEAM: TRAP Co.
FELTHOUSEN and another.
(Circuit Court, N. D. New York. August 22,1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-STEAM-HEATING APPARATUS.
On rehearing, former opinion (20 lfED. REP. 633) adhered to.
In Equity. Dickerson & Dickerson, for plaintiff. E. H. Bottum, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, Justice. Although a rehearing was granted by the court, held by the circuit judge and the district judge, sitting together, as to the second Blessing patent, the reasons which prevailed with them to grant it are not presented, while the grounds on which they held, at the original hearing, that, on a proper construction, the second Blessing patent was not infringed, are set forth in the decision in 22 Blatchf. C. C. 169, 175; S. C. 20 FED. REP. 633. It was held that there was no infringement of the Menill patent, or of the first or the second Blessing patent. No rehearing has been granted as to the Merrill patent, or as to the first Blessing patent. In the first decision it was said, referring to the Merrill patent and the three Blessing patents:
"The object of the invention in each of these patents was, as in the Merrill patent, to return the waters of condensation automatically to the boiler, to accomplish.the same result upon similar principles, but by different and improved mechanism. In view of the prior state of the art, and of the construction given to the Merrill or foundation patent, it may be said, at the outset, that the claims now to be examined should be confined within exceedingly narrow limits. Each inventor must be restricted to the specific improvement and the particular device described and claimed by him."
It was .held that there was a material difference between the defendants' apparatus and its mode of operation, and the plaintiff's apparatus and its mode of operation, as shown in the second Blessing patent. In view of the recent decisions of the supreme court as to reissues, the claims of the second Blessing patent cannot he construed more
broadly than the claims of the original. The reissue was applied for more than four and one-half years after the original was granted. The reissue was taken solely to enlarge the claims. The descriptive parts of the two specifications are alike. The claims are enlarged and generalized. The defendants' apparatus does not infringe any claim of the original patent, and, therefore, does not infringe any claim of the reissue, properly construed. The first claim of the reissue discards the short pipe of the first claim of the original, which short pipe is not found in the defendants' apparatus. The other claims of the reissue mnst be construed as discarding the short pipe, in order to make out infringement. The short pipe is an element in each of the claims of the original patent. There must be a decree for the defendants as to the second Blessing patent.
SPOONER v. DaRN and another.
(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.
July 27, 1885.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NOVELTy-SPOONER BABy-JUMPERS.
Pat.ent No. 138,209, granted April 22, 1873, to Alvah .I!'. Spooner, for an improved baby-jumper, held valid.
S.uHJ-INFHINGEMENT-SPOONEH AND BABy-JUMPERS.
Patl'ut No. 138,2u9, granted April 22, 1873, to Alvah .I!'. Spooner, for an improved lIaby-jumper compared with the device constructed under the Raymond patent, and held infringed thereby.
In Equity. Manahan r1: War'd and Chas. II. Roberts, for complainant. Saml. Kerr, for defendant. BLODGETT, J. The complainant in this case seeks an injunction and accounting against defendants for the alleged infringement of patent No. 138,209; dated April .J2, 1873, issued to Alvah P. Spooner, for an "improvement in baby-jumpers." The leading feature of the device covered by this patent is an iron rod, to the lower end of which a wooden saddle is fixed, upon which the child is seated, and to which a band is fastened for the purpose of holding the child in place; said rod having a rearward curve above the band for the purpose of allowing free action of the child's head, or, in other words, so that the suspending rod shall not interfere with the head or upper part of the child's body. This rod is attached to the suspension straps in such a manner that the whole structure swings vertically, and the child, being seated in the saddle, and duly fastened by the waistband or straps, is enabled to use its feet and legs for the purpose of giving motIOn to the jumper. The first claim of the patent is "the frame, a, formed of a halfround metal bar in the shape shown, with bend, a, and ring, b, and