Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/713

706 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the full advantage of its great light-producing capacity. The defendant used them for that purpose and with that resuit, and must pay the profit or savings made thereby. �The master appears to have computed the profits or sav- ings accurately and on proper prineiples. The defendant might, it is true, have burned in the head-lights other oils than kerosene oil, for they were capable of burning other oils. But, in such case, the defendant would not have made the ôaving it did. The claims embrace the combinations claimed when in use to bum kerosense oil. It does not f oUow, however, that they have no further scope as to manufacture or use. �It is objected by the defendant that the master found the eame rate of profit in respect to the use of the infringing head-lights which contained less than the 11 inventions claimed in the patent, that he did in respect to the infringing head-lights which contained every one of the said 11 inventions. The answer to this objection is that, as the de- fendant burned kerosene oil in every one of the infringing burners, it necessarily used enough, in eaoh case of the pat- ented combinations claimed, to enable it to bum the kerosene oil, which it could not have done with success or satisfaction if it had not used the fewest number of such combinations which it did use. The head-lights which did not contain all the combinations were, necessarily, inferior in results, though sufficiently successful and satisfactory, to those which con- tained all the combinations, and the defendant derived there- from the same rate of advantage in saving which it derived from the head-light which contained all the combinations, though not deriving equal advantages in other respects. But these last advantages are immaterial in ascertaining the saving. �The sixth and seventh exceptions are withdrawn by the de- fendant. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and twelfth exceptions are disallowed. On such diaallow- ance the plaintiff consents to waive any recovery for dam- ages. This makes it unnecessary to consider the eighth and eleventh exceptions. Let a decree be entered for the plaintiff for $3,545.86, as gains, in profits and advantages, with costs. ����