Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/447

WOOSTEE V. BliAKE. 4:33 �and tried in vain to reach a practical result, beeause the mechanical operation which is to efifect such resuit is not yet seen. In looking at the completed thing, the mechanical operation is there; but th» inventor, though he knew all about cams and levers and other mechanical arrangements, did not have in advance before him the coveted mechanical operation. In answer to the suggestion that the defendants' rufflers would work as well, in use, if the blade wer» hinged to the carrier, it is sufficient to say that it is not so made. The three forms of the defendants' ruffler all of them infringe claim 1 of No. 6,565. For the same reason they infringe claim 8. I am also of opinion, from the evidence, that they iiifringe claims 7 and 10. �There is no evidence that anything is found in the re-issue No. 6,565 which is not to be found in the description or drawing of the original patent, or in the model accompanying the application for that patent. �The second patent sued on herein is re-issue No. 6,566, granted to the plaintiff July 27, 1876, for an "improvement in sewing machines for making band ruffling;" the original patent having been granted to E. C. Wooster, on the invention of Thomas Eobjohn, February 14, 1865. �There are 18 claims in the re-issue, but only claims 8 and 9 are involved in this suit. They are as follows : �" (8) The combination of a ruffling or plaiting blade or knife, arrangea and operated above the cloth plate, with a supporting or secondary plate, separate from the cloth plate, between which and the blade or knife the fabric to be ruffled is held and advanced by the blade, substantially as described. (9 (A plaiting or ruffling blade arrangea above the cloth plate of a sewing machine, and adapted to operate upon a surface other than such cloth plate, whereby a strip of goods can be plaited or ruffled above a plain piece, substantially as described." �It is plain that the defendants' three forms of ruffler infringe claims 8 and 9. �Those claims are not anticipated by anything shown in the Arnold patent of May 8, 1860, or by machines having a separator plate such as is shown in the model filed with the application for the Arnold patent. Arnold had no ruffling blade operating above the cloth plate. What is contended for is that it required no invention to pass from Arnold to Eobjohn. The evidence shows the contrary. The results following the change are very marked, and give to the change the character of invention, as distinguished from ordinary skill. There is nothing else in the evidence which is an anticipation of Eobjohn. v.8,no.6— 28 ��� �