Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/549

 542 FEDERAL ilEPOBTBH. �EvoET and others v. L. Candeb & Co. {Circuit Court, B. Connecticut. May 8, 1880.) Patent— Impbovbmbnt est 8hobs — Gokb Flape — iNFEtNaByEirr. �C. Wyllys Betts and Benjamin F. Thurston, for plaintiffs. �Charles F, Blake, for defendants. �Shipman, D. J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of letters patent granted to Evory & Heston, on November 6, 1866, for an improvement in shoes. The National Eubber Company is an exclusive licensee to use the patent in the manufacture of rubber boots and shoes. The invention consisted in a double extension gore fiap upon each side of the shoe, the external fold of which flap is at- tached to and in front of the quarter, and the internai fold of which is attached to and in rear of the vamp. The gores are folded outside of the shoe proper, and forward over the in- step, so that the ankle and the foot are enclosed by the shoe proper. The claim is as follows : "A shoe, when constructed ■with an expansion gore flap, C, D, the external fold, C, of •which is attached to and in front of the quarter, B, and the internai fold, D, of which is attached to and in rear of the vamp, A ; the said several parts and pieces being respectively constructed, and the whole arranged for use, substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth." �The material point of difference between this shoe and the one shown in the English patent of Stephen Norris consists in the fact that the Norris gore folda within the shoe, while the gores of the plaintiffs' patent fold outside the shoe. If the gore of the English shoe is made of stiff leather, there is a sliff crease on each side of the shoe which hurts the foot. If the gore is made of thin and pliable leather, the folds are apt to wrinkle and to become easily displaced when the shoe is worn. The plaintiff's shoe avoids both difficulties. The noveltyof the patented device is not denied. The Norris and the defendants' shoes are described in the opinion in the case of Williams and The National Eubber Company v. L. Candee e ����