All these matters are very persuasive in favor of its patentability. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company, 3 Otto, 486, 495.

The defendant has sold two structures, No. 1 and No. 2. No. 2 is identical with the plaintiff's in all substantial particulars. It is a sleevesupporter formed of a short piece of elastic webbing with a clasp at each end. Each clasp is composed of two jawed levers pivoted together, with a spring between them, which closes the jaws automatically, and the jaws are opened by pressing together the tails of the lovers. Each jaw has across its end teeth or projections which take into correspond ing indentations in the end of the other jaw. This construction is an equivalent construction for the closing of the lower jaw within the upper jaw, as shown in No.156,429 and in the drawings of No. 202,735. The bending of the fabric, in the one case transversely and in the other case longitudinally, assists in holding it, though it by no means follows that No. 202,735 would not be infringed if the clasps had flush meeting edges in the jaws with a spring or means of holding them together sufficiently powerful. No. 1 is a sleeve-supporter having at each end of a piece of elastic webbing a clasp made of two jaws of springy metal, the end of each of which is a lip projecting toward the other jaw, one lip shutting inside of the other and the ends of the lips not meeting. There is a slide inclosing the shanks of the two jaws, and the bite is made by sliding the slide toward the lips, which forces the lips together. Sliding the slide in the reverse direction allows the jaws to open, which they do by their springy action, they being set to stand open unless made to shut. They shut against the action of the spring, while in the plaint. iff's form the clasp opens against the action of the spring.

The form of clasp in No. 1 is substantially the clasp shown in the Ellis patent, No. 137,539, granted April 8, 1873. But that patent shows that Ellis contemplated the use of only one clasp, and that at the top of a stocking, while above the supporter was to be attached by a button to a waistband. No. 1 has all the points of advantage of the plaintiff's structure. It has an automatic clasping device at each end, consisting of clamping-jaws, and the structure as a whole and in its parts, and in their co-operation to effect the result produced by the whole, is the equivalent of the plaintiff's structure. The change in the springy action, to hold open instead of to hold shut, is immaterial in regard to the action of the structure as a whole. There was nothing in the Ellis clasp by itself to indicate the plaintiff's supporter, or No. 1, any more than there was anything in the plaintiff's clasp by itself to indicate the plaintiff's supporter, or No. 2.

On the foregoing considerations it must be held that both No. 1 and No. 2 infringe the second claim of No. 202,735, and there must be a decree to that effect and for an account of profits and damages with a perpetual injunction and costs to the plaintiff.

[Supreme Court of the United States.]

MELLON ET AL. . THE DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

Decided April 3, 1882.

21 O. G., 1616.

LICENSE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED AS AN ESCROW-BURDEN OF PROOF. Where a license executed by the complainant is in the possession of the defendant and is produced by it on the trial, and on its face is absolute and without any limitation or condition, the burden of proof is upon the complainant to show that it was delivered as an escrow.

APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Furman Shepard and Mr. H. T. Fenton for the appellants.

Mr. Justice WOODS delivered the opinion of the court:

The bill charged infringement of letters patent dated October 2, 1866, granted to Edward Mellon, one the complainants, for an improvement in the mode of attaching tires to wheels of locomotives. Mellon had assigned a one-half interest in his letters patent to William Matthews, and they two were joined as complainants.

The defendant pleaded that while Mellon was the sole owner of the patent, to wit, on May 15, 1867, he had, for a valuable consideration, granted a license in writing to the defendant for the full term of the patent to use the improvement described therein upon all its locomotives, locomotive-tires, and wheels. The complainants took issue on this plea. The circuit court heard the cause upon the pleadings and evidence and dismissed the bill. The appeal of the complainants has brought up the case for our consideration. To support the issue on its part the defendant produced a license in writing, signed and sealed by Mellon, dated May 15, 1867, which, its execution being admitted by Mellon, proved every allegation of the plea. The appellants asserted, however, that the license had been delivered as an escrow to John Brisbin, the president of the appellee, in order that he might present it at the next meeting of the board of directors of the company, and if the board consented to pay and did pay thirty-five hundred dollars for the license, it was to take effect, otherwise not; and that nothing whatever had been paid for it. The appellee denied this, and asserted that the delivery was upon a valuable consideration received by Mellon; was absolute, and without condition or reference to any future contingency.

As the license is in the possession of appellee and is produced by it on the trial, and on its face is absolute and without any limitation or condition, the burden of proof is upon the appellants to show that it was delivered as an escrow. The only evidence to maintain their side

of the controversy is the deposition of Mellon. On the part of the ap pellee is the testimony of Brisbin, its president, to whom the license was delivered. His deposition contains a direct and explicit denial of the testimony of Mellon in reference to the delivery of the license, and he is corroborated by the evidence of another witness, who was superintendent of the rolling stock of the appellee at the time the license was delivered.

The case turus upon a single question of fact. The burden of proving that fact is on the appellants, but the weight of the evidence is with the appellee.

The decree of the circuit court dismissing the bill was right, and must be affirmed.

[Supreme Court of the United States.]

THE WILSON PACKING COMPANY ET AL. . THE CHICAGO PACKING AND PROVISION COMPANY ET AL.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

THE WILSON PACKING COMPANY ET AL. . HUNTER ET AL. (two cases).

APPEALS from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

Decided May 8, 1882.

21 O. G., 1689.

1. REISSUED LETTERS PATENT No. 6,370 INVALID.

Reissued Letters Patent No. 6,370, granted to William J. Wilson for improvements in processes of preserving and packing cooked meats as limited by the two disclaimers filed October 26, 1880, construed and held to be void for want of novelty and invention.

2. SAME-MERE CHANGE-AGGREGATION.

All the other parts of a process of preserving meats remaining unchanged, a mere change in the mode of cooking the meat from broiling, roasting, or steaming to boiling cannot be called invention and entitle the party who suggests the chauge to a patent for the process. It is a mere aggregation of old elements, bringing out no new product nor any old product in a cheaper or otherwise more advantageous way.

3. REISSUED LETTERS PATENT No. 7,923 INVALID.

Reissued Letters Patent No. 7,923, for an improvement in sheet-metal cases, held to be void for want of novelty.

Mr. Wm. Henry Clifford and Mr. Jno. N. Jewett for the appellants. Mr. L. L. Coburn and Mr. Jno. W. Noble for the appellees.

STATEMENT.

By stipulation of the parties these cases were argued together as one

case.

The bills of complaint charged the defendants with the infringement

of their several reissued letters patent of the United States, of which the complainants were the assignees and owners. Only two of these patents are relied on. These are: First, Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,370, granted to William J. Wilson, dated April 6, 1875, upon an application filed April 2, 1875, for improvements in processes for preserving and packing cooked meats; and, second, Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,923, granted to John A. Wilson, dated October 23, 1877, upon au application filed October 15, 1877, for improvement in sheet-metal cases. The bills of complaint were dismissed on final hearing by the courts below, in which, respectively, the cases were tried, and the complainants have brought them to this court by appeal. The controversy relating to these patents will be separately stated and considered.

The original patent to William J. Wilson bore date March 31, 1874. The specification of this patent was as follows:

Be it known that I, William J. Wilson, of Chicago, in the county of Cook and State of Illinois, have invented certain new and useful improvements in processes for preserving and packing cooked meats; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description thereof.

The nature of my invention consists in a process for packing cooked meats for transportation in a compressed form, while heated with cooking, into an air-tight package, so as to preserve the meat in its integrity and retain all the natural juices and untritious qualities of the meat.

In carrying out my invention the meat is first cooked thoroughly at a temperature of 212 Fahrenheit, so that all the bone and gristle can be removed and the meat yet retain its natural grain and integrity. The meat is then in proper condition for eating, and is wholesome and palatable. A measured quantity of this cooked meat is then, while yet warm with cooking, pressed by any suitable apparatus into a previously-prepared box or case with sufficient force to remove the air and all superfluous moisture and make the meat form a solid cake. The box or case is then closed airtight upon the meat.

The meat is thus packed and compressed in its natural state-that is, without disintegration or desiccation-and it retains all the juices and nutritious qualities of the meat, the compression only removing the superfluous moisture. The meat thus put up is available at all times, even when cooking is impracticable, as it is already cooked before it is packed. It is more economical, as it is compressed and reduced in weight one half from the uncooked weight, being free from bone and gristle, and put up in a compact portable shape for transportation, rendering the usual expensive cooperage unnecessary. Besides this, there is a great saving in the cost of transportation. A barrel containing two hundred pounds uncooked meat weighs, gross, three hundred and twenty pounds meat, salt, brine, and barrel, while by my process it would weigh only one hundred and ten pounds gross, making a saving in cost of freight alone of nearly two-thirds.

The box or case may be made of wood or metal, or both combined, of any suitable form or shape, and of any desired dimensions.

The claims were thus stated:

1. The within-described process for packing cooked meats for transportation, by compressing the same, while heated with cooking, into an air-tight package, so as to preserve the meat in its integrity and retain all the natural juices and nutritious qualities of the meat, substantially as set forth.

2. As a new article of merchandise, cooked meat put up in solid form, in its natural state, without disintegration or desiccation, in hermetically-scaled packages, as set forth.

The differences between the specification and claims of the reissue and the original patents of William J. Wilson were these: First, in the omission from the second clause of the reissue specification of the words "while heated with cooking," contained in the corresponding clause of the original specification; second, the insertion of the word “preferably" in the third clause of the reissue specification before the words "while yet warm with cooking"; third, omitting from the first claim of his reissue the words "while heated with cooking," contained in the first claim of the original patent. In all other respects the specification and claims of the original and reissued patents are identical. Therefore the original and reissued patents of William J. Wilson are the same, except that the reissue covers the process of packing the meat cold, if preferred, while the original required that it should be packed while warm with cooking. There is nothing in either the original or reissued patent in regard to the boiling or in regard to any preliminary corning or curing of the meat.

While the causes were pending in the court below, and after the testimony in chief of the defendants had been taken, to wit, on October 26, 1880, the patentee and the complainants filed in the Patent Office a disclaimer, disclaiming the word "preferably" where inserted in the specification of the reissued patent, and also any process described and claimed by which meat is to be compressed into the packages in any other than a warm or heated condition. On the same day the patentee and complainants filed another disclaimer, whereby they disclaimed any interpretation or legal construction of the words of the specification of the reissued patent broader than is conveyed by the words "the meat is first cooked thoroughly by boiling it in water, so that all the bone and gristle can be removed and the meat yet retain its natural grain and integrity." The effect of this disclaimer was to restore the claims of the reissued patent to what they were in the original patent, except that the claim of the original patent is limited by the second disclaimer to the packing of meat cooked by boiling. As amended by these disclaimers the claims of the reissued patent were as follows:

1. The within-described process of packing for transportation meats cooked byboiling by compressing the same, while heated with cooking, into an air-tight package, so as to preserve the meat in its integrity and retain the natural juices and nutritious qualities of the same.

2. As a new article of manufacture, meat cooked by boiling put up while heated with cooking, so as to form a solid cake in the package in its natural state, without disintegration or desiccation, in hermetically sealed packages, as set forth.

It will be seen that the invention covered by the letters patent of William J. Wilson after the disclaimers was a process consisting of the following elements:

First. The thorough cooking of the meat by boiling in water at a temperature of 212° Fahrenheit and the removing of the bone and gristle. Second. The pressing of the meat, while warm with cooking, into a