Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/557

 DVNBAB V. ALBEBT FIELD TAOE 00. 543 �mind of the borrower. I do not know that an inventor is bound to satisfy his own mind alone by his experiments. The question to be determined is not only whether the tool will work, but in what modes and with what advantages over old tools; how well it will work and how cheaplyj and I am of opinion that he may, in such a case as this, test not only its patentability, but the degree of it, if I may so say; that is, -whether it is worth while io patent it. I must not be understood as speaking of a case in which the tool or thing patentpd bas been sold more than two yeara before the appli- cation. Deoreefor the complainants. ���DuNBAB and others v. Albebt Field Taok Co. and others. �{Oireuit Oourt, B, Massachusetts. , 1879.) �1. Patents Nos. 90,902 and 164,839, for improved eut shoe naila. Met �valid, and infringed by the " cub " naU. �2. Intention — Patbntabilitt.— The addition of corrugations to a specifie �kind of shoe nails ia patentable, although shoe nails bad been pre- viously corrugated. �In Equity. �LowELL, C. J. This suit is brought upon two patents granted to Hosea P. Whidden, one of the plaintiffs. No. 90,902, dated June 1, 1869, is for a eut shoe nail having a round frustro-conical head, a tapering shank, and serrated corners or edges ; the point of the shank being eut thin so as to clinch readily when the nail is driven against what is called the armored last. Patent No. 164,889, dated June 22, 1875, is for an improvement upon this nail by making the head longer, the mode of making it being fuUy described. �It has been held by Judge Shepley that this nail does not jrfringe the patent granted to Estabrook, No. 86,374, dated Deeember 29, 1868, that not being a eut nail, and not having a head. Estabrook v. Dunhar, 10 0. G. 909. It is said ����