Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/182

174 FEDERAL REPORTER. �TOOHET V. HaEDING. �{Circuit Court, D. Maryland. February 28, 1880.) �Invention — Claim— Patent. — A. patent only protects that part of an invention which the patentee sets out in liis claim. �CoNPLiCTEiG Inventions — C^ommon Purpose of two Inventions. — The manufacture of a machine in accordance with a patent, witliout infringe- ment of the claim of another patentee, cannot be restrained, although the machine incidentally accomplisliea the purpose of the prior inven- tion of such other patentee. �Patent-Office — Evidencb. — Certain certilied copies of certain papers froni the files of the patent-offlce, net purporting to be anything in the nature of a record, lield admissible in evi lence, in proof of facts perti- nent to the issue. �Bill in equity to restrain infringement of patent. �MoREis, J. The bill alleges that complainant is the in- Tentor of an improvement in plaiting machines, whereby the case-board was provided with a removable strip, in combina- tion with rods having heads, for which a patent, No. 192,098, "was granted to her on June 19, 1877, in pursuance of her application therefor, dated May 25, 1876; that respondent's patent does not have, and does not pretend to have, that which is the peculiar feature of the invention of the com- plainant, to-"wit : the removable strip in combination with the case-board, and plaiting rods having heads, as in her patent described; that respondent is making and vending machines eontaining the improvements and inventions of complainant, and, under color of his own patent, making machines having the inventions of complainant incorporated therewith. �Eespondent, in his answer, alleges that he is mauu- facturing plaiting boards not in violation of complainant 's rights, but under his own patent, No. 186,246, issued to him on January 16, 1877, in pursuance of his application there- for, made May 27, 1876 ; he having previonsly filed, on May 2, 1876, a caveat relating to his said patent. He denies that his machines have, or pretend to have, the pecnliar feature of complainant's invention, but alleges that they are made strictly in accordance with his own patent, and are substan- ��� �