the vessel could be raised or lowered at pleasure. She was also to be provided with scrapers, which could be attached at either end, and raised or lowered at will by machinery. She was to have rudders at each end, and be able to move in either direction, either head or stern, equally well. He proposed to try the scrapers first, and if they were not found to work satisfactorily, to try any other device which might be thonght practicable. Brady seemed to be much pleased with the idea, but seemed confident of the success of the Wiggins.

It further appears that General McAlester, in pursuance of his idea, communicated his plans to the Government board of engineers, and during the spring and summer of 1867, commencing as early as April, prepared the plans and specifications according to which the Essayon was afterward built. It is very strange that the copy of General McAlester's letters to the Department, and several other important exhibits that were put in evidence, have not been inserted in the record used on this appeal. Where the fault lies it is not for us to say. Sufficient appears, however, notwithstanding the evidence adduced to the contrary, consisting mostly of the testimony of the complainant himself, to convince us that Brady derived his whole idea from the suggestions of General McAlester, and that the plans for the construction of the Essayon originated entirely with that officer.

Our conclusion is that the patent sued on cannot be sustained, and that the decree of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill of complaint.

Decree reversed accordingly.

[United States Circuit Court-Southern District of Ohio.]

THE NATIONAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL. v. MEYERS.

Decided February 3, 1883.

23 O. G., 1443.

1. REISSUE No. 6,811 DECLARED INVALID-REISSUE No. 6,493 NOT INFRInged. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,811, granted to John Parker, December 21, 1875, for an improvement in fly-traps, examined and held to be invalid. Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,495, granted to James M. Harper, June 22, 1875, for an improvement in fly-traps, construed and held not to be infringed by the defendant's structure.

2. MECHANICAL SKILL-NON-INVENTION.

In the fly-trap whose construction is otherwise old it is not a patentable invention to strengthen the wire-cloth case by the use of upright and horizontal stays, nor to similarly strengthen the wire cone by annular and upright stays. These are suggestions which would occur to any skilled mechanic in constructing such chambers of wire-cloth, from the very nature of the material, and are mere matters of workmanship involving no invention.

3. SAME-SAME.

There is no patentable invention in fastening the cone of a fly-trap to the base by slipping the horizontal annular stay of the former within that of the latter, so that they shall coincide, nor in nesting such cones for transportation.

Mr. Wm. B. Burnett for the complainants.

MATHEWS, J. :

This is a suit in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of two letters patent, one Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,811, granted to John Parker, December 21, 1875, the other Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,493, granted to James M. Harper, June 22, 1875.

1. The Parker patent (the reissued patent) is for an improvement in fly-traps.

The object of the invention, as declared by the patentee in the specification, is—

To so construct a fly-trap of wire-cloth, that, while the insects have free access to enter the trap, they will not be liable to escape from it again.

The nature of his invention, he declares

Consists in a wire-cloth case, having a wire-cloth cone within it, said case and cone being strengthened and united together by vertical and horizontal stays, and the case being closed at its top, and provided with an entrance passage at its base, which leads to the cone, and the cone having an exit-passage which leads into the

case.

The construction of the trap is described by reference to the drawings, in which is represented a hollow outer case, which is of cylindrical form along a greater portion of its height and terminates in a truncated cone at its top. The case is made of fine wire-cloth, which is supported and strengthened by upright narrow stays and shallow horizontal annular stays. The wire-cloth and its stays are connected together by means of suitable fastenings in any proper manner. There is a horizontal annular stay at the base of the wire cylinder, and another at the top of the cylinder or base of the truncated conical tip thereof. This case is open at its bottom, and provided at its top with a discharge-passage, and around the vertical neck of the stay which forms this passage a severable cover is fitted. The lower ends of the stays are extended down below the wire work of the case, so as to form an entrance-passage between the lower edge of the cylinder and the bait-holder when the trap is set up for catching flies, and the upper ends of the upright stays may be formed with bail-hooks, to which a swinging bail may be hinged. Within the cylinder, near its bottom, a hollow wire cone is placed and fastened by suitable means to the inside of the wire work thereof, so that flies cannot pass between the cylinder and base of the cone. This cone is truncated at its top, and may be strengthened by annular stays at its base and upper end. Above the cone a second similar one may be arranged and fastened in like manuer. The outer case and cone are made of wire work and light stays, so that the expense of manufacturing the traps may be very slight, and also that the light from the outside may attract the flies from the center to the circumference of the trap.

The mode of its operation is also described as follows:

The trap being arranged over a shallow bait-holder, the flies enter the case A through the passage D, and, being attracted by the light above, fly through the first cone into the case; and if two cones are provided, they fly through the second cone from the

space between the two cones into the space between the second cone and the top of the case. The return of the flies seldom happens, as they naturally fly out toward the circumference of the trap instead of toward the apex of the cones, which is at the center of the trap.

The two claims, in respect to which infringement is alleged are the first and third, as follows:

1. The wire-cloth case A, closed at top and open at bottom, and supported by upright and horizontal stays, and provided with a wire cone, E, having an exit above its base, substantially as and for the purpose herein described.

3. The wire cone E, having an exit above its base and fastened to the inner side of the case A, which is supported at its bottom by an annular stay, and from top to bottom by uprights stays, substantially as and for the purpose described.

The original patent of which this is the reissue was dated November 22, 1870.

From the evidence in the cause as to the state of the art at this date it is quite clear that so far as this patent discribes the arrangement and relation of the outer case and the inclosed cones as forming two chambers, one dark, the other light, into the former of which flies are enticed by means of a bait through an entrance-passage, and from which, when they fly, they naturally escape through a narrow aperture into the upper and better-lighted one, from which they are not likely to return through the small and darkened aperture which admitted them, it cannot be claimed to be new. That device was at that time for such purposes well-known and in common use. It is contained in the English patent of Delestre of November 1, 1866, and in Gilbert's patent, No. 15,848, in this country, dated October 7, 1856. It is true that in the former the trap was described as intended to be made of glass, porcelain, or other suitable material, and in construing this, as claimed by the complainant, and as, indeed, seems reasonable, to confine the material to such as shall be similar to glass or porcelain, nevertheless the arrangement and relation of the parts is substantially what is described above. Delestre's patent evidently contemplated the destruction of the imprisoned flies by their falling into water contained in the bottom of the upper chamber, and so being drowned; but the mode of disposing of the flies is not essential to the trap. On the other hand, Gilbert's patent also contained the same arrangement, operating in the same way, and employed wiregauze as the material for the sides of the upper chamber, and for the conical entrance into it from the lower and dark chamber, made of wood. An arrangement perfectly similar is also found in the Scott patent of February 16, 1858, in which the outer case and inner chamber, and both made of wire-gauze, are fully described.

The question, then, recurs: What in this state of the art remains as a patentable invention described in the Parker patent on which it can operate? The answer made by the complainant is found in the following extract from the testimony of Mr. John W. Hill, an expert, called on its behalf (priuted testimony, page 322):

The distinguishing features of the Parker invention, confining my attention to claims 1 and 3 of the Parker patent and to the state of the art as shown by respond..

ent's exhibits, are the addition to the wire-cloth case of the trap of the vertical and horizontal stays, to give greater vertical and horizontal stiffness to said case, and the horizontal stays to the wire-cloth cone, to furnish greater lateral stiffness to the base of said cone, by means of which additions the case and coue may be constructed of much lighter materials than would be necessary if these valuable adjuncts were omitted. Another valuable feature in the Parker trap, in the light of the state of the art, is the manner in which the wire-cloth cone is attached to the wire-cloth case-that is, by slipping the horizontal annular stay of the cone within the horizontal annular stay of the base of the case, whereby the strength of the base of the trap is represented by the two stays acting in conjunction in the same plane. The merit of an invention, even in a patentable sense, is not unfrequently measured by the advantages it confers in the light of similar devices which have preceded it. And upon this basis the Parker invention marks an era in devices of this character. No previous invention proposed the construction of a fly-trap in such a manner that it might be made of cheap materials and safely packed for transportation to all parts of the world without danger of damage to transit. No previous invention seems to have assembled together in a simple and systematic manner the essential elements of a device of this kind, and, although the line of separation between the Parker invention and inventions of a similar character which preceded it may not be broad, it is, in my opinion, broad enough to maintain its claim to novelty and utility in the distinguishing features which I have ascribed to it.

But the provision for upright and horizontal stays in the wire-cloth -case and the annular and upright stays in the wire cone are not inventions. They are suggestions which would occur to any skilled mechanic in constructing such chambers of wire-cloth, from the very nature of the material, and are mere matters of workmanship involving no invention. As to the mode of fastening the cone to the case, by slipping the horizontal annular stay of the former within that of the latter, so that they shall coincide, nothing is said of it in the specification; and were it otherwise, there seems to be no patentable invention in that. The same remark applies to the suggestion of nesting for transportation, with the added observation that, as the cases are described as cylindrical and the interior chamber as a cone, the feature does not seem to be practicable, as it would be were all conical in shape. The conclusion, therefore, is that the Parker patent is void for want of novelty.

2. As to the Harper patent. The original patent was dated September 3, 1872. The reissue is limited to the claim of a base-block for flytraps, which is described as

The concave base-block H, having extensions z and shoulders n, in combination with the cylinder A and its cone B, substantially as described.

It is formed of a single piece, the bottom of which is flat and the top recessed to forin a receptacle for bait. The base-piece is provided with shoulders and extensions to hold the bottom of the cylinder, having spaces between the extensions for the passage of flies upward into the cone. The base of the cone is adapted to fit closely the conical shoulders of the bottom piece, thereby serving to sustain the cylinder in its place and preventing displacement or accidental overturning. Waiving all other questions as to this reissue, I am satisfied that the patent must be limited to a base-block of the particular construction described, and

that the respondent is not guilty of an infringement. This base-block is a circular disk, with a depression on the upper surface for containing the bait, the shoulders and extensions in the Harper patent being dispensed with, and metallic springs used instead, over which the case and trapping-cone are slipped, and by which they are held in place. For these reasons the bill is dismissed.

[United States Circuit Court-District of Massachusetts.]

NEW YORK BELTING AND PACKING COMPANY ET AL. v. SIBLEY. Decided March 2, 1883.

23 O. G., 1444.

1. DISCLAIMERS.-LIMITATIONS IN THE PATENT.-BINDING ON PATENTEE.

Disclaimers, qualifications, and limitations imposed upon a patentee by the Patent Office are forever binding upon him, if he chooses to accept a patent containing them, and they forbid any subsequent enlargement, whether by reissue or by a broad construction of claims thus intended to be limited. 2. SAME.-PROPER REMEDY BY APPEAL.

If an applicant considers a case important enough, he may refuse to take a limited patent, and being then rejected, may apply to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and if still dissatisfied, he has his remedy is equity by section 4515 Revised Statutes. Here remedies are ample, and they are exclusive under the decisions.

3. SAME.-INFRINGEMENT.

Construing the patent according to the requirements of the Office acquiesced in by the patentee, Held that the defendant did not infringe, because his frame has not the peculiar construction which the Examiner declared was the only ground for issuing the patent.

Mr. Charles H. Drew for the complainants.

Mr. B. F. Thurston and Mr. Frederick P. Fish for the defendant..

LOWELL, J.:

BEFORE GRAY AND LOWELL, Judges.

The decision of this case, like so many others of its class, depends upon the construction to be given to the claims of the patent. It is No. 140,635, granted to George Merrill, July 8, 1873, for an improvement in knitting-machines. The result accomplished by the new machinery is the production of a knitted fabric, into which warp and weft threads are introduced, without weaving in the ordinary mode, for the warp and weft are locked or held together by a second weft or knitting thread. Any knitting-machine may be adapted to this use, and the mere operation of knitting is not changed. The most essential thing is to present the warps to the knitting-needles at an angle to the line of action or reciprocation of the needles, else there will be no opportunity for them to move, as they must, in and out, to form and interlock the loops. So plain is the necessity for this special mode of operation that