Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/525

 518 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �outside of this flange, for receiving a flange turned inwardly, •with a simple circular bend on the edge of the next plate, •which hooked into the gutter of the other flange, making a smooth rib over the joint on the inside of the can, and an accessible gutter between the bends for soldering the joint on the outside. �Prince's was of a joint made by having the edge of a plate turned inwardly, and then reversed on itself, forming a double flange, with a narrow and deep groove between the sides, receiving a flange turned inwardly on the edge of the next piece, at the proper angle, and fitting iato the groove so as to be clamped by its sides, forming a joint on the inside of the can, and an accessible gutter on the outside for the solder. The differences in the shape and depth of the grooves for receiving the flange of the next piece make an important dif- erence in the hold they take of the flange, and in the solidity and strength of the joints, and in the joints as a whole. Prince's has strength from the strength of the metal without Bolder, and a convenient gutter for solder to make it tight and still stronger. Covell's had a convenient gutter for solder, but depended on the solder for its strength. The object of Covell appears to have been to provide a joint which could be easily soldered ; that of Prince to make a joint of increased strength, as well ; and both appear to bave succeeded. The joints are different from each other, not merely in degree, but in kiud. Prince's can had the same joint to unite the head • and bottom to the sides, and Covell's a different one for that purpose from those uniting the sides, and the infringing can has different joints there ; but this is not material, for the in- vention and infringement could eonsist in joints of a particu- lar form for parts of cans, as well, pro tanto, as for the whole. Goodyear Co. v. Preterre, 15 Blatehf. 274. These conclusions are in accordance with those of the patent-office, which had both applications, and that of one Merrifield before it at the same time, and declared an interference between Prince and Mer- rifield, but not between either and Covell, and granted a patent to both Prince and Covell. �These considerations entitle the plaintiff to a decree sus- ����