Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/410

 898 FEDEBi.Ii BEFOSTEB. �The Union Papeb Bag Machine Co. v. The Atlas Bag Co.* �{Circuit Court, B. D. Penum/lmnia. February 7, 1881.) �1. Patent— Validity of — Anticipation. �Claims 2 and 6 of re-issued patent No. 6,050, for improvement in tools for the manufacture of paper bags, held to have been antici- pated by adevice in use two yeara before the original patent. �2. Same— Pkiob DbvioE of One op Two Joint Patentees — Effect �OF Inoorpokating it in Joint Invention. �Tliat such prier device ,may have been the invention of one of the two joint patentees is immaterial, since it is not theic joint invention ; and embracing it In their patent gives them no right to its exclusive use, exceptin the particular coœbination described in such patent. �Bill in equity on account of an alleged infringement of re- issued letters patent No. 6,050, for improvement in tools for the manufacture, of paper bags. The patent was originally issued to Edwin J. Howlett and Susan M. Kirk, and was re- issued to Edwin J. Howlett, as assignee. The answer denied that the re-issue was for the same invention that was described in the original patent, pr that Howlett was a joint inventor, and alleged anticipation of the devices therein contained. �J. li. Bennett and George Harding., for complainant. �P. K. Erdman, F. A. Lehmann, and J. J. Combs, for re- spondent. ■ �Butler, D, J. Claitns 2 and 5 of the plaintiff's patent, are, very elearly, for equivalent devices. The blade B, and the plate E, are intende(^ for separate, independent use. When the former is detach^d ^nd removpd, as contemplated to be when not in use, the latter supplies its place, and per- forms its oESce. Both cannot be used at the same time. Paragraph 14 of the specifications, and the testimony of the experts on each side, as well as an examination of the plain- tiflf's drawings and model, show that one of these devices is the mere equivalent of the other. The complaint, as exhib- ited by the testimony, and urged by counsel, is that the de- fendants have infringed the fifth claim. It goes no further. �*Keported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �