Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/777

 762 FEDERAL REPORTER. �GOTTFKIED V. CrESCENT BfiEVVIKG Co. (Circuit Court, D. Indiana. 1881.) �1. LiiTTEHS Patent— PiTCHiira Babbels — Invalidity foe Want of Noveltt. �Letters patent No. 42,580, issued to J. F. T. Holbock and M. Gottfried, May . 3, 1864, for a new and improved mode of pitching barrels, are void for want of novelty. �2. OtD Mbchakism — Analogous Use. �There is no patentableinvention in using the same mecliamsm for the puf- pose of applying a blast of hot air to the interior of beer caska to beat them, as had been preyiously used to apply a blast of hot air, of the same character, to tl^e interior of moulds and other receptacles for the same liurpose. ■ ' ■ ■ ' -< . ■ . ■ ■ �InEquity. �.Banmwgr te Sanniregr, for plaintiffi. �ParAinsort ce ParMnson, for defendant. . ■ Gresham, D. J. Letters patent No. 42,580 were issued to J. F. T; Holbeck and M. Gottfried, May 8, 1864, for a new and improved mode of pitching barrels. This suit was brought by the plaintiff, as assignee and owner of the patent, against the defendant for infringe- ment, and for an injunction and account. The invention consista in preparing casks for receiving pitch or other melted substa,nce, which mil render them impervious, by introducing into the casks a blast of highlyrheated air, The mechanism described in the patent consista of a furnace with a vertical central opening and grate-bars near the bottom, over an ash-pit. A rotary fan forces the air tl^rough a pipe into the ash-pit and up through the fire on the grates, the heated air and products of combustion being thence driven into the cask through a pipe leading from the top or near the top of the furnace or fire- chamber. When the cask is sufficiently heated, it is removed and rolled until the interior surface is thoroughly coated with the melted pitch. �The defendant's device need not be described, as it is not aemed that it is substantially the same in construction and mode of opera- tion as the complainant's. The defence is that the patentees were not the original and first inventors of the alleged improvement ; that the same had been described in certain English letters patent and foreign printed publications, and had been in public use in this country prier to the supposed invention or discovery. �It was held by Judge Blodgett in Gottfried v. Fortune, 13 0. G. 1128, that the plaintiii's invention was not anticipated by the Davi- ��� �