STARLING tl. WEIR PLOW dO.'
the of the arms. V. to Held that, in view of the prior state of the art. the claim is limited to the specific named, and is notinfringed by II jack having II collar integral with the standard, and incapable of any movement. 48 Fed. Rep. 302, affirmed. 2.
SAME-ExTENT OF CLAIMS.
Claims cannot be enlarged by constructiou. 48 Fed. Rep. 302. affirmed.
Appeal from· the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District· of lllinois. In Equity. Suit by <Mulliken & Co. against Arthur L. Stanford for infringement of patent. Bill dismissed. See 48 Fed. Rep. 302. Complainants appeal. Affirmed. Dyrenforth & Dyrenforth, for appellants. Geo. Payson and L. L. Bond, for appellee. Before WOODS, Circuit Judge,and BUNN; District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below.
v. WEIR PLOW CO. et aL (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 1. October 27, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PATENTABILITy-NOVELTy-SULKY PLOWS.
The first claim of letters patent No. 154.293, issued Allgust 18, 1874, to Wil· Iiam Starling, for an improvement in sulky plows, consisting of thecombi· , nation of '" crank bar with the plow beam, lever. and axle, so that the horses are made to raise the plow out of the ground. is void for want of novelty. 49 Fed. Rep. 637, affirmed.
A decision that a patent which has three claims. covering different features of thedevjce, is not void for want of novelty, does not render the question of novelty res adjudicata when a single one of the claims is attacked in a subsequent suit for want of novelty, and proof is introduced in such subsequent suit that was not offered in the former suit. 49 Fed. Rep. 637, affirmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the South· ern Division of the Northern District of lllinois. Suit by William Starling against the Weir Plow Company and William Weir to restrain an alleged infringement of a patent. The bill was dismis!\ed for want of equity. 49 Fed. Rep. 63i. Com· plainant appeals. Afllrmed. H. W. Wells, for appellant. Bond, Adams & Pickard, for appellees. Before GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and JENKINS, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in 49 Fed. Rep. 637.
FEDElUL REPORTER,' voL
GUSTIN v. NEW" ALBANY RAIL·MILL CO. et al (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. October 27, 1892.)
1 PATENT& FOR INVENTIONS- DJllVIOE FOR CARRYING RAILROAD RAILS . TIcrPATION. AN'
;', The first and second claims of reissued letters patent No. 7.898, (original No. 190,211. dated May 1, 1887,) "for improvement in .apparatus for carrying railroad rails," whereby the upper surface of the carliier is arranged at or 'below the level of the bedHuld provided with projectin!t c.atches in combination with the bed, the d.riV.i.n g chains, and the guide rails, are anticipated llY the patent to White and Wostenholm, March 19, 1872, No. 124.687. 47 Fed. Rep. 508, affirmed. " .
The third claim of patent, in to "the combination with an endless chain, B, subject to expansion by hot rails of a pulley, b, arrang¢.in a side bearing"d,.J:ield by a movable weight," Is void, in view of the prior art, and anticipated by the patent to S. E. Jewett, June 9,1874, No. 131.705, showing a movable pulley controlled by a. weight the end of a 'chain. 47 Fed. Rep. 1168,. affirmed. ' ,;
.Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United 'States for the District of Indiana. In Equity. Suit by Andrew againlilt the New Albany Rail-Mill Company and others for' infringement' of patent. Bill dismissed. ':' Complainant appeals. Affirmed. J. H. ll8.ymond, for appellant4. . A. Lyrtch' Mason, for appelleeS. Before GRESHAM and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge. ' PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from. is affirmed, upon the grounds stated in the. opinion of the court below) reported in 47 Fed. Rep. 508.
P. P. MAST & CO. v. RUDE BROS. MANUF'G CO.
(c....ircuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 12, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NovELTv-CULTIvATORS.
Letters patent No. 354.717, issued December 21, 1886, to P. P. Mast, for an improvement in cultivators. consisting in the construction of couplings by which the beams and alignment rods are connected with the axle, and in the construction of the beam brackets and crossheads which carry the shovel standards at the point where the brackets and standards join. so as to maintain the alignment between the shovels and the aXle, irrespective of 8. change in the lateral position of the shovel beams, are void for want of novelty.
Letters patent No. 237,740, issued February 15, 1881, to C. O. Gardiner and W. C. Downey, for a cultivator in which the drag bars are coupled to a wheellld frame, and arranged to swing vertically and laterally, are void for want of novelty.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.