Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/929

 zum », wj!is0. 91T �thecase of the defendants is not helped becatise of the Mea- eer patents owued by the plaintiSs and set foirth in the bill^ namely : re-issue No. 8,106, and re-issue 8,123. The pateni re-issue No. 8,123 is for a clasp consisting of three pieces — a base plate, a cap with a tail-piece, and a spring. �These parts are constructed so that the cap shall hinge upon and engage with the base plate without the use of a pintle or its equivalent, and so that that part of the cap called the tail-piece,'by pressing upon the free end of a spring attached at the other end upon the bottom of the base, holds the cap and base in connection, while, at the same time, the cap is permjtted to swing in and out, andso to clasp between it and the base any article desired to be.held thereby. �The invention desoribed in re-issue No. 8,106 is the aamft as that described in re-issue No. 8, 123, with this; single excep- tion ; that it has a stud attached to the base plate npon.whieh, the cap shuts, and the article intended to be -clasped is held by means of an eyelet that slips over the stud, instead of by, an abutment upon the article clasped, as in re-issue No. 8^123^ The defendants clasp^is intended to produce precisely the same result as that aecomplished by^the.Messer clasp. It cojisists of three pieces^-a base, a cap having a tail-piece, and a spring. These parts operate togethei in the same man- ner as do the same parts in the Messer clasp, the only differ- ence being that in the defendant's clasp the.whole of therea? end of the ^ap is bent down to form the tail-piece, instead of ; only a part of the cap, as in the Messer clasp. This distino*' tien does not, in my opinion, constitute a difference. The funetions of the tail-piece are the same in both clasps. Such a form of tail^iece as that employed in the defendant's clasp would be suggested almost as a matter of course by the tail- piece of the Messer clasp. �The defendant states in his affidavit that advantage is gained by his form of construction, but what that advantage is does not appear, nor is there any evidence except the bare statement of the defendant that the cost of the clasp is reduced by making it in his form. 8o far as I have been able to dis- cover, the two clasps accomplish precisely the same resuit by ��� �