Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/327

 312 FEDEBAIi BBPOETER. �and it bas been adopted in numerous other instances : Stone y.Sprague, 1 Story, 270 ; Oray v. James, Pet. C. C. E. 394 ; Jones v. Pearce, Web- ster, P. C. 123 ; Blanchard Co. v. Warner, 1 Blatcbf. 209 ; Baibroad Co. V. Dubois, 12 Wall. 47 ; Clark v. Busfield, 10 Wall. 1 33. If it were for amei/iofiindependently of the plaintiff's press, it would be bad for want of novelty. The scms method of ejecting substances out of presses — by successive charges of material behind — bas been in use time out of mind. The presses for peat and brick, exhibited by the defendants, show it. That the substances were not hay, baled or unbaled, is not important. The method was the same; the application of it to other material would be but another use. The suggestion that the sub- stance so ejected was not hay baled and ejected as the plaintiff does it, brings us back to the point at which we started, by illustrating that the claim is not for an independent process, but for the plaintiff's, as performed by his particular machine, involving his entire invention. In either view, however, the claim cannot be allowed. Of reissue 8,316 the claims involved read as follows : �"(2) The combination of the sweep or horse-lever with the crank F and pit- man L, for operating the traverser of a baling-press. (3) The craak or tog- gle L F, in combination with the traverser E, receiving-box B, and bale-cham- ber C, substantially as described." �Properly construed, these claims embrace the same matter. If the first were confined to the language in which it is expressed, it would probably have to be rejected for want of novelty ; for it would thus seem to be for a new application of an ordinary horse-power, requiring no invention. That the plaintiff intended it to be so con- fined, is rendered quite probable by the insertion of the next claim — which involves the same matter, in combination with other elements of his press. The same combination, however, is incorporated in the first by necessary implication. It must therefore be rejected, — the second of the two being allowed, because of its greater perspicuity. There is no reason to doubt the novelty or utility of this claim, or to question its validity on any other account. �Of reissue 7,983, the claims involved are as follows : �"(3) In a horizontal baling-press, in which the baies are compressed and ejected through the end, the bale-chamber D, constructed with tapering or adjustable sides, to regulate the resistance offered to the passage of the baie, for the purpose of compressing and hardening it, substantially as described." "(5) The press-head formed of the previously completed baie, substantially foi the purpose set forth." "(11) The folio wer 0, as the partition or separation between the flnished and forming baie, as set forth." ��� �