Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/781

 766 FBDEBAL KEPORTER. �instrumentalities which the patentees employed. in their use of the hot blast operated just as they had previously operated when the same blast was iised for other purposes. They employed old mech- anism without produeing a new effect. It may be true that this device produced a better resuit, but that, of itself, was net enough to sustain the patent. �In delivering the opinion of the court in Roherts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 150, Chief Justice Waite says : �" It is no new invention to use an old machine for a new purposa The inventer of a machine is entitled to the beneflt of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not." �And, says Justice Story, in Bean v, Smalltvood, .*/ Story, 408: �" The tiiing itself which is patented must be new, and not the mere appli- cation of it to a new purpose or object." �The plaintiff's patent was not for the application of an old machine to a new use. The interior of moulds and other receptacles had been previously beated by a hot blast, and the patentees used a blast of the same character to beat the interior of beer casks. No new application of a natural force or element in nature was pointed out or described in the patent. �This case is different in some essential respects from the cases which were decided by Judges Blodgett and Dyer. �The bill is dismissed for want of equity. ���DOWNTON V. AlLIS. �(Circuit Court, E. D. Wiscondn. October Term, 1881.) �1. Lettbks Patent— Middlings Floub. �Under certain contracts to which Robert L. Downton and Edward P. Allis & Co. were parties, the latter acquired no rights of ownership in an invention covered by patent No. 162,157, for a process in crushing grain or middlings. �In Equity. �W. O. Rainey, for complainant. �D. S. Wegg and Jenkins, EUiott e Winkier, for defendant. �Dyer, d. J., (orally.) This is a bill filed by the complainant, Down- ton, against the defendant, Allis, the prayer of which, in brief; is that certain contracts, which are set forth in extenso in the bill, and to which reference will be presently made, may be decreed to be can- celled, and to be no longer in force; and particularly that it may be ��� �