Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/332

324 FEDERAL REPORTER. �vibrating armature being efifected by merely intercepting the galvanic current at suitable intervais. It is apparent, therefore, that the patent itself makes the adjusting or reg- ulating the length of vibration of the armature of an electro- magnet by means of a set-screw, as set forth in the specifica- tion, a different invention from the adjusting or ragulating by a set-screw the length of vibration of an electro-magnetic bar, vibrating between the arms of a permanent magnet. Hence, the date of the description of the latter invention can- not be taken as the date of the description of the former invention. The matter of the thirteenth claim is patentable under the act of March 19, 1868, because it was described in the application of February 2, 1854, and not because it was described by Dr. Page, in connection with a circuit-breaker of bis, prier to said application. It is not shown to have been described by him prior to said application. �The novelty of the invention covered by the eleventh claim is attacked. A publication in volume 1, page 534, of "Sci- entific Memoirs," in 1837, in London, edited by Eichard Tay- lor, in regard to an apparatus of Dr. Schulthess, is adduced ; also a publication in volume 6, page 25, of the "Eeport of the Seventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advance- ment of Sôience," in 1838, in London, in regard to an appa- ratus of the Kev. J. W. MaGauley. The same two publications are adduced against the novelty of the invention covered by the twelfth claim. The defendant bas failed to establish by them the defence of want of novelty in the eleventh and twelfth claims. In the Schulthess apparatus thare is no adjustment of the retractile force of an automatie cireuit- breaker of any practical utility ; none by minute increments and decrements, as in the plaintifïs' and the defendant's appa- ratuses, and the description gives no evidence of any design to regtilate the retractile force, so as to accomodate it to varying currents of electricity. The description of the MaGauley apparatus is not so full and explicit as to entitle it to be con- sidered as a description anticipating either the eleventh or twelfth claim. At page 532 of the same book above men- tioned, which contains the description of the Schulthess ap- ��� �