Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/776

 HOLMES V. PLAINVILLE MANUF'G 00. 761 �result could be had by the use of the same motive power. He was directing the attention solely to take-upa in looms, and not to take- ups in other and different pieces of mechanism, and his patent ex- pressed plainly the subject of his thought and the resuit of his labor. That the invention could be applied to other naachines waa a discov- ery made after the date of the patent. �The original patent was open to objection, because it might be claimed that the patentee had included in the combination the "lay" as a lay, and not as a means of transmitting power, and therefore if the crank should be applied to any other lever than the woof-beater there would not be an infringement. This mistake was apparent on the face of the specifications, and justifies a reissue ; but that the invention was improperly restricted, by limiting it to looms for weav- ing, was not thus apparent. Neither the specification taken alone, nor as construed by the state of the art in regard to the subject of the original patent, revealed that the invention was broader than the patent. That came to light after the state of the art on both looms and knitting-machines had been shown. I am of opinion that the loom of the reissue is the loom for weaving cloth of the original pat- ent. �The inventors of the device which is used by the defendants apparently adapted the Holmes take-up to the needs of a knitting- machine, but not without alteration. They did not simply apply the old method to the new use without change. The new machine bas no lay, and does not require the intervention of a lever between the crank and the pawl-carrier. A loom take-up must work with power to keep the fabrie taut. A knitting-machine desires that the fabric shall not be strained by over tension, and therefore demands only the exercise of gentle force in the take-up mechanism. Ail that is required is that motion should be communicated from the crank directly to the pawl-carrier. In view of the different eharacter and needs of the two machines, motion is not transmitted in these two devices by the same or equivalent means. �The bill is dismissed. ��� �