Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/900

 888 FEDEEAL RBPOSTBR, �when the stopper is out of the bottle mouth; a lever con- nected vfith the yoke, and by means of which the stopper is forced down and compressed to close the bottle mouth tightly ; and the lever and the yoke are connected with each other, with the bottle, and with the stopper by pivotai connections, so as to permit the lever, the yoke, and the stopper to be turned relatively to the bottle and to each other, so as to force the stopper down to close the mouth of the bottle with the force incidental to the power of the lever. In the plaintiff's re- issue the neck band is pivoted to the lever, the lever to the yoke, and the yoke to the stopper. In Exhibit No. 11 the neck band is pivoted to the yoke, the yoke to the lever, and the lever to the stopper. In both there are four elements, — the neck band, the yoke, the lever, and the stopper, — each con- nected to one of the other three by a pivotai connection-, there being three pivotai connections. The neck band and the stopper are in the same place in both structures, each at one end of the series of four. The places of the yoke and the lever are transposed in the two structures. In the plaintiffs' the lever is next to the neck band, and the yoke is next to the stopper. In Exhibit No. 11 the yoke is next to the neck band and the lever is next to the stopper. But this is the only dif- ference, and it is no diiierence of substance in respect to the invention and to the mode of operation of the combination of the four elements, in its entirety, as such combination exists in both structures. That is the combination covered by the first daim of the re-issue. The same considerations show that the combination covered by the second claim of the re-issue exists in Exhibit No. 11. Exhibit No. 11 is known as the Von Hofe stopper. �2. The answer sets up that the re-issue covers more than was described in the specification of the original patent, and is not for the same invention. There is no evidence to this effect, and there does not appear to be any ground for the assertion. �3. The answer avers that the plaintiflfs' bottle-stopper was, before De Quillfeldt applied for his patent, invented by one Emil HoUender, or by him jointly with De Quillfeldt, and ��� �