Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/105

EOBBS V. EIMO. 91 �HoBBB and others v. Kino and others. �(Oircuit Court, W. D. PervMyUiania. May 3, 1881.) �1. Patbbt No. 132,208— Gradhated Glass-Wabb— Anticipatioii— Validitt— Infringbment. �Letters patent No. 132,208, granted October 15, 1872, to John H. Hobbs, for improvement in manufacture of graduated glass-ware, hdd, valid, and infringed by graduated glass-ware manufactured under letters patent No. 217,050, granted July 1, 1879, to Marx Block. �A glas» measure graduated on its outer face, and a metallic measure gradualed on its inner face, hdd, not to anticipate a glass measure graduated ou its inner face. �Complainant's invention, consisting of glass-ware having a graduated scale on its inner surface, hdd, infringed by defendant's construction, in which the graduation extends entirely around the inner lace of such glass-ware. �In Equity. �Geo. H. Ghristy, for complainanta. �Wm. Henry Browne, for defendants. �AoHBSoN, D. J. On the fifteenth of October, 1872, letters patent No. 132,208, for an improvement in the manufacture of graduated glass-ware, issued to John H. Hobbs, who subsequently assigned the patent to the plaintffs, who sue for the infringement thereof. To graduate the cavity of a glass mold, and thereby produce articles of glass-ware graduated on their outer faces, was practiced prior to Hobbs' invention, and this is stated in his specification. But Hobbs describes in his specification an apparatus and method of producing interna%-graduated hollow glass-ware. The operation of pressing is that ordinarily practiced, but his plunger is graduated to any desired scale, and in this way is produced any desired kind of open-topped glass-ware, with a graduation on its inner face exactlyxiorresponding to that used on the plunger. Hobbs' claim is in these words: "Glass-ware graduated on its inner face, substantially in the manner set forth." In his original specification, filed with his petition for letters patent, Hobbs also claimed : "A glass-mold plunger graduated on its face, substantially as set forth." But this claim the office rejected; and Hobbs, acquiescing in the decision, amended his specification and struck out that claim. The effect of this amend- ment was to restrict the claim to the manufactured product or glass- ware graduated on its inner face, substantially in the manner Set forth in the specification; but for all practical purposes the letters patent, as granted, secured to Hobbs all the benefits of his invention. �The defendants insist that Hobbs' patent is invalid for uncertainty. ��� �