Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/530

516 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Palmer gun. It is obvions that the two guns are constructed upon a different System ; but it is claimed that the thrusting a cartridge into the rear of a barrel without joints, as distinguished from a chamber or a barrel having joints, was an important advance in the art, and constituted the essence of Palmer's invention; and if that pj-inciple or mode of operation is used by the defendant, there is an infringement of the first claim of the, patent, even though the partic- ular deviees in the two guns for accomplishing this mode of opera- tion differ so much that one device or series of devices is radioally unlike the other. If the claim was of such broad character it would not be sustained. O'Reilly y. Morse, 15 How. 62 ; Matthews v. Schoen- berger, 18 0. G. 14, 651. �An etamination of the specification and claim shows that the lat- ter did not undertake to cover so wide a fleld. The claim literally read is for a resuit; but that is not ita meaning. It is for the com- bination of devices, substantially as described, for effecting the speci- fied resuit. It being borne in mind that revolving guns were old, and that revolving guns which were loaded, discharged, and eleaned at different parts of their circuit antedated the Palmer, the claim is for a combination of three sub-combinations, one for loading cartridges into the rear of the barrel of a revolving gun at one point in its cir- cuit, another for conuning and firing such cartridges at another point, and the third for extraoting the shells of the cartridges at another part of the circuit. It is not a claim for a continuous barrel in a revolving gun, as distinguished from a chamber, or a barrel with joints, and in such relations to the loading mechanism that the car- tridge can be thrust into the rear of the barrel, but it is a claim for the loading, firing, and extracting mechanism; and such mechanism or combinations of mechanism as entirely differ from the plaintiff's, are not within the claim. If the patentee was led to believe that he could cover any mechanism which should load a revolving gun by thrusting cartridges into the rear end of the barrels, and which should discharge and thereafter extract the cartridges, the three operations being effeoted at different points in the circuit, he was in error. �The remaining point is as to the infringement of the sixth claim. The extracting devices in the two guns are dissimilar. The operation of the respective devices is thus explained by Mr. Knight : �" In the Palmer gun the bar, to the forward end of which the extractor hooks are attached, is reciprocated backwardly by a tappet on the operating crank shiift, and when released is throvvn forward by a spring so that the hooks corne ��� �