Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/162

 148 fkdeiuIj .bepoeteiu �v^hicli would form a complete heel-shaped counter at one operation. The objection to the ordinary method of moldihg by pressure between a maie and fcmale mould lies in the resiliency of the material; that is, its tendency to resume its original shape. The difQculty with machines which used a revolving "former" to press the material with groat force through, instead of into, a mould, consisted in obtaining the exact «urves. Cote's machine, which has been before me in two cases to which the plaintiff is a party, makes a counter which is circular in cross section, and therefore needs to be reshaped by hand or by machinery. �In the patent now in suit, the plaintiff describes improvements in machinery for both parts of the operation, for forming a counter, and for reshaping it, and his claims, numbered from 2 to 6, are for these improvements, which are not infringed by the defendants. But what he considers the great future of his invention is the "process" of submitting the counter first to one and then to the other of the old methods. He says : �"This process of shaping counters, consisting in first shaping them by means of a former, a, and theu molding them in the exact form desired over the maie mold, e, constitutes the chief feature of my invention, and its great merit is that counters can be made by my improved process, not only with the proper curves to suit the trade, but also, in all other respects, of the exact shape required ; and, so far as I know, I am the flrst to obtain this." �He goes on to say, as I have said, that counters had been made upon machines working in either mode, and to point out the objec- tions to each. His first and broadest claim is for "the improved process of shaping counters above described, consisting in first giving the proper curves by a revolving former, substantially as described, and afterwards giving the exact shape by forming the counter over a maie mould, all as set forth." �The defendants make counters by first passing counter-blanks though a Cote machine, patented in 1874, and then shaping them upon a Hatch machine, patented still earlier. They do not use the specifie improvements in machinery described in patent No. 178,869, but they do use the process of the first claim. As I intimated at the hearing, I am not aware that a patent has ever been sustained for a process or method which consisted of employing an old machine for the very purpose for which it was made. If any person discovers how to use an old machine to the best advantage, he is only a skilful work- man, not an inventor. The plaintiff undertakes to prevent the own- ers of a machine made for moulding counters from using it to finish ��� �