Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/711

 696 FBDSBAL BEPORTflIi. �EOTEB V. EuSSELL & Co, (Oireuit Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D. JSTovember 26, 1881.) �1. Lettbrs Patent— Desteuction of Model— Mistake m DKAwrwa— Measukb �OF Peoof. �Where the original model •which was flled in the patent-office has been de- Btroyed, the fact that a mistake has been made in the drawings on flle, on which the patent was issued, must be very clearly eatabliahed before the court will allow them to be corrected. �2. Same— Gbain Separators. �Letters patent No. 167,570, granted September 7, 1875, to complainant, for an improvement in grain separators, are not infringed by the defendants' machine. �In Equity. �Lucien Hill and Chas. M. Peek, for complainant. �M. D. Leggett e Co,, for defendants. �Welkee, d. J. ihis suit is brought by the complainant against the respondents upon letters patent No. 167,570, granted September 7, 1876, to complainant for an improvement in grain-separators. The bill charges infringement, and prays for an injunction and account. The answer denies, the alleged infringement, and denies that the claims were patentable in view of a large number of prior patents, to which it refers. Eeplication filed and heard on the evidence. �In the complainant's patent the claim is stated as f ollows : �"Having thus fully described my invention, what I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent is — �"The revolving rake operating in combination with the straw-deflector, S, and shaker, H, substantially as set forth. " �This is the only claim relied upon by the complainant, and for the infringement of which this action is brought. The patent is a com- bination of old devices, which may be patentable where new and useful results are thereby produced. The revolving rake, the de- flector, and the shaker are each separately old devices, and each had been used for many years before the complainant's patent. �It is important, in the first place, to deterraine what was the com- plainant's combination for which he received his patent. The orig- inal model filed in the patent-office has been destroyed, so that it could not be put in evidence for inspection. We have before us the drawings on file in the office — one copy put in evidence by the com- plainant and another copy by the respondents. In these drawings the position of the deflector in relation to the shaker or carrier seems to differ very muoh. In that of the respondents the deflector is shown ��� �