Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/222

 SHANNON V. S. M. W. JONES STATIONERY & PBINTINQ CO. Z07 �ent his transfer wires must be formed of a "single piece of wire," but the Connecting bar between deifendant's wire makes themj for all practical purposes, one wire, and I disoover nothing in. the proof that leads me to conclude that the cpmplainant was, by the state of the art when he entered the field, to be aonfined to so literal and narrow a construction of his patent as would relieve the defendant from infringement because its transfer wires are made of two pieces of metal instead of one. If the proof showed that other double trans- fer wires had been made prior to complainant's patent, which per- formed substantially the f unction of the complainant's or defendant's transfer wires, then the point might be well taken. But. it seems to be a necessity for the operation of these double transfer wires that they shall be so connected together as that the lifting of one will lift the other to the same extent in the same direction so as to retain the parallelism of the rings. And this appears to be most readily accomplished by making the two wires in one piece. But that does not allow an infringer to eut out a section of this wire and ' insert another piece of metal in the place of that eut out^ and then ineist that it does not infringe, when the metal inserted performs the same function as that removed. I find, therefore, that defendante paper-holder infringes the first, second, third, fourth, and seventh claims of the complainant's patent. �The seventh claim is for a stop. A, stop is necessary for the proper working of the device in order to prevent the transfer wires from slipping past the points of the puncturing wires; as the transi- fer wires operate by a spring. If there was not a device for stopping them as they strike on the bevel, they woiild not* make a perfect joint or connection at their point of contact j, and therefore the oomplainant, in his device, bas a stop upon his spring, so that the crank, as he calls it, strikes upon the stop and prevents it from pasa- ing any f urther. The defendant has two stops operating sub- stantially the same way in his device, and for the same purpose, although he haa arranged them differently; yet they perform the same function, and are, undoubtedly, substantially the same stop, though somewhat differentiy constructed. �My conclusion, then, is that there is an infringement of this patent shown clearly, and although it is a patent for a device of minor consequence, yet, at the same time, itis just as much entitled to protection as though it was for the most important piece of ma- chinery ever devised. There will be a deeree for an injunction, and a reference to ascertain and report profits and damages. ��� �