Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/697

 690 PBDEBAL BEPOETEB, �by the patent office being as follows: "The Bubject-matter involved in the interference is, in a box coffee mill, the hop- per constructed with a lateral projecting flange to form the top of the mill, and having fastening devices for eeouring the eame to the box." �The parties respectively filed the preliminary statements required by rule No. 63 of the patent office, and on May 15» 1878, the interference was decided in favor of Shepard. This decision was acquiesced in by Webb, who on May 24, 1878, disclaimed the invention and subsequently took ont his patent on another daim. �The oomplainant's counsel contend that the defendants, who are the vendees of Landers, Frary & Clark, are privies' to the interference and bound by the adjudication, and citeai in support of this position the decision of Judge Nixon, in Hanford t. Westcott, 16 0. G. 1181. Ta this proposition I assent so far as the question of priority of invention is concerned. But the decision does not preclude the defend- ants from contesting the right of the complainant to injunc- tion, upon the ground of defence now set up, viz. : That the Shepard invention waa completely anticipated by tha "French mill," and, therefore, that the reissued letters patent disclose no novelty, and are void for want of patentable invention. Let us, then, consider this defence. �The "French mill" consists of a box, with a top made of wood, upon the ander side of which a wooden blçck is glued, so as to extend do-wn into the box when the top is placed on the box. Through the center of the top and block there is a funnel- shaped opening, which forms the hopper. To the bottom of the wooden hopper the grinding shell is attached by means of Bcrews. The top of the mill is nailed and glued to the sides of the box. �The defendants contend that the only substantial difference between the complainant's mill and the "French mill" is a difference of material, and that ail the advantages are found in the latter miU which are described in the complainant's re-issued patent. But such was not the position of Landers, Frary & Clark, and their assigner, E. L. Webb, when the ����