Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/451

 of anytMng underlyîng the whole structure, hîs patent can- not be coûstrued as coveringthe whole, but miist be restricted to the partioular construction invented by him in order to stand at ail. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. His scuttle is made with a bottom stamped eut of one piece of metal, extending upwards outside of the body. The defend- ant's scuttle is made in substantially the same way, except that the bottom extends upwards inside of the body. Placing the body inside of the upward extension of the bottom is an important and distinctive feature in the plaintiff's invention, and is made so by his patent. Without that, a scuttle can- not be said to be his style of scuttle. He rivets the body to the bottom, and the bottom to the base, and that mode of fastening them is described in his patent. Had that been new his patent would probably have covered it, as well as the method of putting the parts together to form the scuttle. But that is an old and well-known way of fastening parts of metalUc vessels together, and could not be patented to any one. His : patent seems to stand well enough for his partioular style of scuttle fastened in that manner, and that is ail. The defendants do not make that style, and th^refore do not infringe. �ïhe bUl is dismissed, with costs. ���Clarkb, Trustee, v. Johnson. {Circuit Court, E. J). Nem York. November 17, 1880;) �1. Rb-Ibqtib No. 3,579, issued August 3, 1879, to Nathaniel Jenkiiu, for a �certain form of dise used for valve seats in steam joints, lidA not t'n* fringed. �2. EqurvAXEKTS. — One substance does not constitute the equivalent of tha �other, -when each produces a dlSerent product under the same con- ditions. �In Equity. Decision on final hearing. �Thomas William Clarke, for complainant. �B. F. Lee and Gilbert e Cameron, for defendant. ����