Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/520

 608 FEDERAL REPORTER. �rated to be detachable, and the former bound to remain; tue act of -writing on the copying paper, with a sheet of carbon- ized paper put between it and the ordinary paper, causing a copy of what is thus written to be made on the ordinary paper. The specification of Bradly and Fielding shows a leaf with a printed bUl-head perforated at the left, close to the binding, and next a perforated leaf a short distance from the binding, so as to leave, when torn out, a stub or counterslip between the perforation and the binding. A piece of black pa- per is interposed between the first and second leaves, and the first is written on, making a copy on the second, and a memo- randum is made on the stub, and the two leaves are detached. In regard to the Morse specification, it is sufiBcient to say that the leaves in it are not shown as necessarily of substan- tially the same length, and there is only one ticket between any two record sheets. �In Exhibit of claim, the stub leaf is only one-half the length of the check, and there is but one stub leaf for each check. Abook made of them, whether partially used or not, showed stub leaves of not substantially the same length as the check leaves. Exhibit D shows nothing different from Ex- hibit C. �It was not new at the date of the plaintiff's invention, as shown by the foregoing matters, to make books containing leaves, which, when fiUed up, were to be detached, and other leaves for recording the contents of the first leaves, which other leaves were to remain in the books, Nor was it new at that date to make such books not larger, substantially, in either direction than the size of the leaves to be detached, and with the leaves to remain as large in size as the leaves to be detached. Nor was it new to make check-books with stub leaves, one stub leaf interposed between two checks, and one check between two stub leaves, and the book no larger sub- stantially than the check. But these things do not meet the first claim of the plaintiff's re-issue, nor do they meet the fea- tures found in the defendant's book which enter into said first claim, as those features are hereinbefore set forth, �It is suggested on the part of the defendant that the first ��� �