Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/603

 UTOH V. BBAGa. 689 �The invention of Bristol was in two parts. The first part consisted in construeting the tongue with a recess upon on» side, opening outward, through which one arm of the spring must project to bear upon the liook. In this recess the coil of the spring was placed. The advantages of this method of construction were those of economy of material and ease of manufacture. Besides, dirt and foreign sub- stances could not collect in an open rec*e8S. The second part of the invention consisted in an improved construction of the body of the hook. It is described in the second claim, but as it was not infringed it need not be carefully considered here. It is sufBcient to say that it consisted in casting a stud or fulcrum pin upon one of the cheeks, but not extending to the other, the length of the stud being no greater than the space between the cheeks when they are pressed together so as to retain the tongue upon the pin. �The first claim, and the only one infringed, was for — �" ihe eombination of the tongue, g, with the spiral spring, (figure 4,) when the spring works on the tension principle, and rests in a recess (as 14) in the rear end of the tongue; substantially as herein described." �This hook bas had large success. Thirteen millions have been sold since 1865. �The defendants' hook bas substantially the plaintiffs* recess. It differs somewhat in shape, and both ends of the spring do not project forward towards the hook, but the recess bas the heretofore-described distinctive features of the first part of the invention. It is useless to say that because the defendants' do not have the precise shape of the recess, or beeause both ends of the spring do not point the same way, theref ore the first claim is not infringed. The claim is too broad for such a narrow construction. �The more plausible line of argument is that the claim was, through ignorance of the art, or through inadvertenoe, made so broad that it bas no novelty, and is, theref ore, invalid. The defendants, therefore, desire to construe the claim to mean "any form of swinging hook so mounted as to be capable of oscillating, and having a spiral spring working on the tension principle, and resting in a recess of any form in the rear end of the tongue." Upon this construction the Judd patent of 1864, and other patents, would be anticipatory. �The claim was rather loosely drawn, and did not describe the re- cess as definitely as it perhaps ought to have done. But the plaintiffs have refrained from seeking a re-issue, and have preferred to trust their patent to the well-known liberal ruies of construction which have been adopted by the courts of this country, and which seek to ��� �