Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/164

150 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �papera that a îemon placed upon a flat bed of the defendant's machine, when subjected to the operation of the presser, will be spread out'in the same manner as in the machine when the bed is convex. If this be the fact, ail the other points of the machine being the same, it is not seen how it can be suc- cessfully contended that making the bed flat instead of slightly convex, as in the plaintiff's machine, changes the combina- tion or avoids the plaintiff's patent. But it is said if a flat bed be held to be the equivalent of a conical bed, the plain- tiff's patent is void for want of novelty ; and several patents have been put in evidence which it is supposed anticipate the plaintiff's patent, unless it be confined to the convex bed. I do not, however, discover in any one of these prior patents the combination described in the third and fourth claims of the plaintiff's patent, considering these claims to cover a combination having any form of perforated bed that will spread the Iemon when subjected to the action of the presser. But if there be a doubt here, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of it upon the motion. Under the circumstances of this case, equity requires that the defendant, upon whose application the plaintiff's patent was grarited, and whose wife sold the patent, together with tools and stock, to the plaintiff, and who is wholly insolvent, should not be permitted to make machines so nearly similar to that described in the plaintiff's patent, and, by disposing of them at a lower price, destroy the value of the property bought of his wife, until bis right to do so has been established by final decree, and this the more when, as here, the defendant is the only person who disputes the plaintiff's claim to the exclusive right to make such machines. �The motion for injunction is therefore granted. ����