Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/725

M'eLOBKEY W. DU BOIS. 711 �"My sald invention may be manufaetured by any suitable proeess, means, or apparatus whereby soft metal may be caused to pass invariable qutotities or- at variable velocities through or from an annulai die." �And then describes the apparatus constituting one mealis by ■which the trap may be produced, and the mode of production, siating further that — ' ■ �" The walls of the trap thus formed will be of uniforcci thickness at the inner and outer sides of the bends or curves," and that it iSsues frbto tha^ie "in the form of a pipe of greater or less curvature, and with solid oir seamless walls, the outer surfaces of which are more or less marleed with longitudinal straitions from end to end of the trap, whieh latter isithus distinguished from other traps by its peculiar appearance." �The claim is for "a die-drawn seamless trap of soft metal as a new article of manufacture, substaritially as herein described." There is nothing further in the patent showing what traps of this sort were in use or known before, or any other advantages of this trap; neither is there anything in the evidence or case in the record showing any- thing wherein a die-drawn trap is any different from or better than other traps. These traps are simply bends of water pipes, down- wardsj and then upwards, far enough to hold sufflcient water in the bends to fill the bore of the pipes at the lowest point, and preverit the passage of air or gas. It is a part of common knowledge that such traps were made prior to this patent, or invention, of lead, and perhaps of other soft metal, by moulding or casting. Traps so made were in very common use in the drainage of houses in cities. This common knowledge and use courts take judicial notice of in cases of this kind. Brown v. Piper, 91 XJ. S. 37; Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592 ; Quirolo v. Ardito, 17 Blatchf . 400. It was the duty of the orator to point out in his specification the improvement which he claimed to be his invention. Eev. St. § 4888. He had the right to assume, the same as others had, that notice would be taken of this common knowl- edge ; but he was bound to show what there was beyond that which he claimed to be his. With this burden upon him he cannot justly claim that there are differences or advantages in favor of his which should be presumed to exist beyond what he bas specified. The patent must be taken as it reads, in the light of common knowledge, until it is shown to cover more by those who claim it doeq cover more. �Looking at the old and well-known structure and the patent at the same time, there is nothing different between the old and the new, except that the old is cast or moulded, and the new is drawn through a die. They are to be made of the same material, and are to oper- ��� �