480 FEDKKAL REPOBTEB. �Butler, D. J. Subsequently to the injunction in this case, the defendants constructed a machine corresponding to a section of the old Andersen machine, (the patent for which has expired,) and con- tinued the manufacture of waxed paper by this means. The plain- tiff, charging that the process thus employed infringes his, as de- scribed in the fifth claim of his patent, asks for an attachment to prevent its further use, and to punish the alleged disregard of his injunction. It is not charged that the machine is similar to the plaintiff's, and infringes the claims of his patent in this respect, but simply that his process is employed, in violation of the claim for this. �In passing upon the validity of the plaintiff's patent, and the con- struction of its severaL claims, we adopted the judgment of the cir- cuit court for the southern district of New York, in Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, (involving the same patent,) [reported T Fed. Eep. 58'i,] for the sake of consistency and uniformity, without critical examina- tion of the reasons on which the judgment was based. Whether the fifth claim, under consideration, is for a process, or simply for the combination of machinery previously described and claimed in sep- arate parts, is a debatable question, which we did not, for the rea- sons stated, esteem it proper to enter upon. In the case cited it was decided to be for a process * * * consisting of successive steps,
- * * four in number," as follows: First, "moving the paper
over and in contact with a heated cylinder, which acts to spread the wax on the surface of the paper; second, heating the un waxed surface to spread and fuse the wax into the fabric of the paper; third, remov- ing the surplus wax ; and, foiirth, remelting and polishing the wax upon the surface," — these several steps being performed "substan- tially as set forth" in the specifications. The plaintiff's present posi- tion, that this process covers all methods of making waxed paper by machinery, "and, therefore, whether or not the defendants carry on the making of waxed paper by machinery, by the complainant's par- ticular method, or by a new mode devised by themselves, and which dispenses with some of the steps used by the plaintiff in his particu- lar mode, makes no difference whatever as l'egards infringement," can- not be adopted. It is clearly unsound, His invention, as described by himself and in his own language, is "for an improvement relat- ing to a means for heating the wax and applymgit to the paper, removing the surplus wax, ana. polishing the surface," — which "improved means" are particularly described in the specifications and embraced in the claims, — the fifth of which reads as follows : ��� �
