Opinion of the Court.

tory from 1865 to 1869, and was familiar with the kind of machinery manufactured by them during that time, for use in their comb factory. He then proceeded: "Q. 5. In September, 1867, or at any other time, did you make machinery for putting metallic backs on combs? A. I did. Q. 6. Without going into detail as to the kind you did make, I will ask you whether, in September, 1867, you made, or helped to make, a machine for putting moldings on the backs of combs, where the molding is held in a groove which fits it closely, and the same groove has an extension enough smaller to fit the comb closely, and in this extension there slides a 'follower,' which is fitted to butt against the end of the comb. At the extreme opposite end of the groove there is a slot across the groove, containing a key or stop, to prevent the molding from sliding through the groove. The follower is attached to a suitable slide or lever, so that, when a molding is laid in the larger part of the groove, and the comb in the smaller part, the comb is prevented from bending by the walls of the groove, and can be forced tightly into the molding, by the action of the follower and of the connecting parts? A. I do not remember that I made anything of that kind. Q. 7. Did you at any other time make such a machine? A. I don't remember that I did. Q. 8. Please examine the comb I now hand you, and state whether Noyes Bros. & Co., at that time when you worked for them, and since, manufactured a comb with metallic back similar to this one, and, if so, state how said metallic back was put on the comb. [Comb marked Exhibit A shown witness and offered in evidence by solicitor for complainant.] A. They manufactured a comb in general appearance similar. The metallic back was put on and fastened to the comb by compression. The back was compressed in a vice to make it fit in a groove in the comb tightly. The molding was placed on the comb by hand, and then put in a vice, and the molding pressed up tightly against the comb. Q. 9. Do you remember working on or making machinery for compressing the molding on the comb, as above described? A. I do. Q. 10. Is the mode above described the only way Noyes Bros. & Co. put metallic moldings on that kind of a comb? A. It is. Q. 11

Syllabus.

You was familiar at that time with the mode employed by them for putting moldings on combs, was you? A. I was.”

This testimony of Knopp is very inconclusive. He merely testifies, thirteen years after he had left Noyes's establishment, that he does not remember that he made, fifteen years before the time when he was testifying, a machine like that described in question 6 put to him. The drawing produced by Noyes was not shown to Knopp.

The testimony of Newman, Coyle and McAuley amounts to nothing. Although they were employed in the comb factory of Noyes at the time they gave their testimony, in December, 1882, and had been employed there, Newman from 1862, Coyle for 14 or 15 years, and McAuley for about 30 years, neither of them was shown the comb A, nor the molding B, nor the drawing C, above mentioned, nor was a distinct question put to either of them as to the use of a machine like that described in question 6 put to the witness Knopp.

The only difference between Noyes's device and that of the plaintiff is, that in Noyes's the stop holds the molding stationary while the comb is forced into the molding by the action of the follower. But its action is substantially the same as that of the stop in the plaintiff's patent, which prevents the molding from slipping through the groove.

The case falls within the principle applied in Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, and cases there cited.

As to the third claim, it is not infringed, because, in the defendant's apparatus, no washers are used for adjustment. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

PETERS v. HANSON.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

No. 66. Argued January 25, 28, 1889. Decided March 5, 1889.

Claims 1, 2 and 3 of letters patent No. 213,529, granted to George M. Peters, March 25, 1879, for an improvement in vehicle dashes, namely,

Opinion of the Court.

"1. The combination of a dash and laterally adjustable attachments, whereby the same may be connected to vehicles of different widths, substantially as set forth. 2. A dash or dash-frame having slots or openings, whereby attachments may be made at different points, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. 3. A dash provided with bearings having slots or openings, substantially as and for the purpose specified," are for improvements which are merely applications of old devices to new uses, not involving invention.

Claim 4 of that patent, namely, "(4). A dash-frame provided with bearings, arranged to strengthen the frame in those parts whereby the dash is to be connected to the laterally adjustable feet or to the vehicle," sets forth no patentable invention.

Claims 1, 2, 3 and 11 of reissued letters patent No. 9891, granted to George M. Peters, October 11, 1881, for improvements in vehicle dash-frames, on the surrender of original letters patent No. 224,792, granted February 24, 1880, on an application filed May 5, 1879, the reissue having been applied for June 15, 1881, namely, "1. A vehicle dash whose lever bar is provided exteriorly with a channel or recess, the metal on eit..er side of the channel or recess affording a bearing for the dash-foot or other portion of the vehicle to which the dash is connected, for the purposes specified. 2. A dash whose lower rail is composed near or at the ends of two thick portions united by an easily perforated web, for the purposes specified. 3. A dash provided with a rail having vertically flat sides, one or both of said sides being exteriorly channelled, substantially as and for the purposes specified." "11. The foot channelled on either or both sides, substantially as and for the purposes specified" are for improvements which amount only to applications of old devices to new uses, not involving invention.

IN EQUITY, to restrain an alleged infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. William Hubbell Fisher and Mr. Benjamin Butterworth for appellant.

Mr. Arthur Stem for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought by George M. Peters, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, against Julius A. Hanson and Cortland C. Van Camp, for the alleged infringement of two letters patent granted to George M. Peters, the plaintiff, namely, letters patent No.

Opinion of the Court.

213,529, granted March 25, 1879, for an improvement in vehicle dashes, on an application filed June 19, 1875, and reissued letters patent No. 9891, for improvements in vehicle dash-frames, granted October 11, 1881, on the surrender of original letters patent No. 224,792, granted February 24, 1880, on an application filed May 5, 1879, the reissue having been applied for June 15, 1881.

The answer sets up as to both patents want of novelty and patentability, non-infringement, and the invalidity of the reissue, because it has been expanded beyond the invention disclosed in the original patent, and contains new matter not found in that patent, and is for a different invention.

There was a replication to the answer, proofs were taken and the Circuit Court dismissed the bill. The plaintiff has appealed from the decree. We are not furnished with any opinion given by the Circuit Court stating the ground for its action, but it said, in the brief for the appellant, that the ground was that the inventions were not patentable.

So much of the specification of No. 213,529 as is material, and the drawings referred to in it, are as follows:

"My invention relates, secondly, to the attachment of the dash to the vehicle; and this part of my invention renders the dash capable of attachment to vehicles of different widths, so that it can be sold as an article of manufacture, for application to the vehicle by the purchaser. These features of my invention render the construction easy, expeditious, and economical. Another feature of my invention consists in such a novel construction of the dash as that there shall be at the part of the frame thereof to which the laterallyadjustable foot is to be attached a proper bearing surface for the support and bracing of the dash.

"In the accompanying drawings, which form a part of this specification, figure 1 is a perspective view of sufficient of a vehicle to illustrate my invention; Fig. 2, a sectional detached view; Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, detached views illustrating modifications, and Fig. 7, a detached perspective view.

"One mode of making the dash-frame is shown in the drawings, in which G F are parallel uprights at each end, C

Opinion of the Court.

DE parallel cross-rods, and M L short continuations of the rods G F. . . In order to connect the frame to the vehicle, and further to permit a frame to be applied to vehicles of different sizes, I construct the frame and the foot H so that, by a lateral adjustment in relation to each other, the desired connection to bodies of different widths may be effected. The frames may be varied in construction to effect this result. Thus, in Figs. 1 and 2 the frame has a wide bearing piece N, of any desired length, with a slot to receive the fastenings of the foot or attachment H, by which the dash and the body of the vehicle are connected adjustably, so that, within the limits of the adjustment, the foot secured to the dash may find its bearings on bodies of various widths. The foot may be of any desired shape, being shown with two branches b d, one bolted or otherwise secured to the dash, and the other to the body I of the vehicle. By the above-described means the dashes may be furnished to the trade as independent articles of manufacture, as the foot may be fitted to vehicles in the process of construction or afterward, and the dash secured without altering or moving it. For the like reason the feet adapted to the vehicles and dashes may be sold separately.

"The bearing N for the attachment or foot may be within the frame, as shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, or it may be in an extension outside of the frame, the result being the same —¿.e., the frame being adapted to be secured without change to bodies of different widths. This bearing portion N may be secured permanently or detachably to the frame bars. Thus in Figs. 1 and 2 it is provided with sockets for the reception of studs at the ends of the bars. In any case it affords a strong and rigid connection between the foot and the frame, so that the latter cannot be bent over under anything less than destructive pressure. This is especially the case when both uprights, F and G, are secured to the bearing piece N, whether within or without the frame proper; but when within the frame, and extending up between the uprights, it stiffens and braces the latter.

"The adjustment of the dash and foot is not necessarily limited to the mode described. For instance, it may be