Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/245

 238 FEDERAL REPORTER, �opening of a garment which has a pocket opening, It does not extend to anjthing but a pocket opening. It requires that the Beam which unites two pieces of cloth laterally shall terminate at the commencement of the pocket opening; that such seam shall be made by means of sewing the two pieces of cloth to- gether laterally by thread; that the rivet shall be of metal; that it shall be placed in the seam at the edge of the pocket opening — that is, where there the seam ends and the pocket opening be- gins, but still in the seam ; that it shall be so located and fast- ened, with reference to the two lateral pieces of cloth which the seam unites, as to bind together such two lateral pieces of cloth by pressing tightly upon both of them; that this shall be effected by putting the rivet through a hole and heading it down on both of the two opposite faces where the hole begins and ends; that the operation of the rivet, when so set, shall be to receive the strain which results from pressure from within on the edge or end of the pocket opening, and keep such strain from coming on the thread of the seam, and thus protect such thread from ripping or starting, and allowing the seam to open; and that the practieal advantage of the ar- rangement shall be to get rid of the frequent renewal, by sewing, of the thread in the seam at the edge of the opening. In view of the testimony as to the state of the art prior to the invention of Davis ail the foregoing features are involved in Buch invention. They ail appear on the face of the specifica- tion of the patent, and are embraced in the claim. They amount to invention, and they embody patent ability. The resuit of them was new and useful. The case is not one of mere double use, or of the use of an old rivet in a new place. It is not merely the usual through and through binding or uniting function of the rivet that is availed of. �It is argued for the defendants that there is no eombina- tion between the rivet and the sewed seam, but a môre aggre- gation; that the claim is not coniined to the application of a rivet to a sewed seam; that a stay of sewed thread is the equivalent of a rivet; that in view of the prior use of a stay of sewed thread at the corner of a pocket opening there was no invention in the change to a. metal rivet; and that a but- ����