Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/923

LINDSAY r. STBIN. 9H �again on the thirteenth of April, 1878, on the same references, and on a patent to Sanford, but on the same day the patent was ordored to be issued. �It is contended for the defendant that No. 156,429 contains SYCry- thing that is found in Ko. 202,735; that there is no invention in- volved in passing from the clasp to the structure with one of the clasps at eaeh end of it ; and that the case is one of mere duplica- tion or double use, or, at least, of merely a new application of the clasp. It is quite apparent, from the evidence, that the clasp was applicable, and was applied for use by being attached to one end of a piece of elastic and then fastened to a stocking to hold it up, the other end of the elastic being fastened by a button or other device to another garment above. Large numbers of the clasps were made and Bold and used in that way. The plaintifi, almost simultaneously with his invention of the clasp, capable of such separate use, in- vented the supporter, consisting of the two clasps and the Connect- ing strap. The latter invention was completed before he applied for a patent for the former. In that application he might have cov- ered the supporter and also claimed the clasp separately, and one patent might have embraced both. The supporter is not merely a new application of the clasp. It is something more. As a struct- ure, the two clasps with the uniting strap will do what one clasp, or one clasp with an attached webbing, cannot do, It is an article com- plete in itself, capable of use at any place without any appliance except what it contains, and of being moved from one place to an- other, without any previous special preparation of the garment to re- ceive it. It involved invention beyond what the clasp alone indicated. �The specification of No. 202,735 is criticised as being obscure and as not pointing out what invention is claimed. The first claim ia properly to be construed as a daim to using the structure described, consisting of material with the clasp described, or its substantial equivalent, at each end, when such structure is applied to the sleeve in the direction of its length. There is no valid objection to this claim. The article can be used otherwise than lengthwise of the sleeve. The second claim is for the article, irrespective of the man- ner in which it is used. The first claim may be unnecessary, and there may he little practieal diiierence between the two claims. But the claims suiiiciently point out the inventions, and they are patent- able. �Ey: section 12 of the act of March 2, 1861, (12 St. at Large, 248,) it was enacted as follows: ��� �