Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/463

WiLT ». OBIER. 451 �It is not contended that the patentee is the inventer of the movable trays, the outer walls of which constitute the dry- house, It is admitted the existence of such trays, for such purpose, is old in the art; but the complainant contends that the patentee is the originator of an idea, which is a novel and useful one, of raising the stack of trays from a point on the lowermost tray of the stack, thus making an opening for the insertion of a fresh tray containing fruit, and in this manner huilding the stack up from the bottom, instead of from the top. This is accomplished by arrangements and dev'oes shown and described in his drawings and specifications. �The defendant, Grier, admits that he bas manufactured automatic fruit driers embodying the above ideas, but justi- fies his action under the authority gianted him in letters pat- ent No. 221,066, issued February 14, 1880. So that the question in controversy is a question of fact, whether or not the defendant, in making fruit driers in accordance with his patent No. 221,056, has infringed the complainant's rights under the aforesaid patent No. 190,368. �Now, while it is true, as a matter of law, that the issuaice of a patent gives a prima facie right to the claimant to oper- ate under that patent, it is by no means conclusive, but is subject to investigation by the proper courts when questioned by a party whose rights are claimed to be infringed thereby. �The right which is the subject-matter of this alleged infringe- ment is to be found set forth in the complainant's fourth claim of his patent No. 190,368, and is in the following wbrds : "In combination with a fruit drier, the outer wall of which is made np of the frames of the several trays, as explained, a Buspending device, operating substantially as described, and supporting said drier from a point in or on the lowermost tray thereof, for the objects named." �Eeferring to the drawings and specifications for the meah'- ing of the words "substantially as described," as applied io the term "suspending device" in said claim, we find that the complainant does not confine himself to the precise means indicated by the words of the claim; for he eipressly says : "And I desire to be understood as not limiting my invention ����