Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/840

 82& FEDSBAL B^FOBTBB. �One of the great objections to; the solid concrete pavements made before Schillinger's invention waslhat it craclsed irregularly, and one of the chief advantages of his' invention, as sliown by the testi- mony in these cases, ig that the openings resiilting from shrinkage come along the line of the joints, and the blocks themselves do not crack, although that advantage is not set forth^ in the patent. In the pavements constructed by the respondents this resuit has been attained; and it has been admitted by the respondents in one case in this court, in which the SchUlinger patent has been ili question, that the object of running the trowel through at the joints was to so weaken the pavement along these lines as to control the cracking, and ieave' the blocks, as marked off, unbroken. This is clearly an infringement, for the patentee; is entitled to all the benefits which resuit from bis invention, wheiher: he has specified all the benefits in bis patent or not. So, in heaving from frost, and in taking up the pavement, the breakage would be likely to be along the same line. �The conclusion at -which I have arrived, from an examination of all the evidence in these casea, is, then, that in the pavements laid by the respondents in each of these cases there are open joints made between the blocks during the process of formation, in to which is interposed material which remains there permanently ; and the view that I take of it is that that material is, in some degree, the equiva- lent of the tar paper, and givesj to some considerable extent, at least, the advantages of the Schillinger invention. �In my judgment, based upon the testimony and my own observa- tion of the specimens of blocks exhibited in the case, the respondent's pavements thus made are not equal to the Schillinger pavement; but then the respondents make pavements which are practical pave- ments, in which the cracking resulting from shrinkage is controlled by the joints made in the process of formation, and in which, to some extent, the blocks can be removed without injury to the adjoin- ing blocks, although not so completely as in the case of the Schil- linger pavement. The respondents construct practical pavements, which can be made cheaper than that made underthe Schillinger patent, having, to some extent, the same advantages, obtained by sub- stantially the same means, and therefore come in competition with the complainant, and to a considerable extent supersede his patented pavement. Therefore, even under the construction which I have heretofore given to this patent, although narrower than that which has been given by the eminent judges whom I have named, I think ��� �