Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/931

WHITE D. E. P. OLEASON MANDf'g CO. 917 �Whitb v.E.P. Glbason Manup'g Co. �[Circuit Court, S. D. Nm York. April 28, 1881.) �1. Lettiibs Patent — Globe Holdbbs — NovEiiTT — IinrAiiDiTT. �Reissued letters patent No. 7,286, for an improvement in globe holders, are ' invalid for want of novelty. �M. D. Conolly, for plaintiff. �J. C. Clayton, for defendant. �Wheelee, d. J. This suit is brought upon letters patent reissue No. 7,286, the original of which was No. 162,73l,dated April 27, 1875, enti- tled "An improvement in globe holders. " The object of the invention is stated in the specification to be "to provide an elastic support or holder for globes or glass shades for gaS-burners." The principal defence relied upon is lack of novelty in the invention. Amongother alleged anticipating devioes,the defendant put in evidence a holder con- sisting of elastic arms, with hooks or catches at the upper ends for receiving and holding the globe, fastened to a tube or collar, to encirele and rest upon the bumer for support, and marked "Exhibit CO." The patent bas tWo claims : one for a globe-holder, having spring or elastic arms, made with curved or bent ends, forming hooks or catches for embracing the lower edge or flange around the lower opening of a globe; the other for "the improved globe-holder thereiii described, eonsisting of the disk or center, having aperture for the passage of a gas-burner and spring or elastic arms, terminating in hooked or curved ends for the purpose, substantially, as set forth." It is claimed for the orator that each claim is susceptible of two con- structions: one broad, and the other narrow, — the broad, in each, covering every form of globe-holder having elastic arms, and the nar- row covering, by the first, only holders having elastic arms with the' peculiar bent or curved ends for holding the globe, shown in the pat- ent, and by the second, only holders with elastic arms riveted to a disk, center to rest on the,fixtures, as described in the patent, Asto this Exhibit CC, it is not claimed for the orator but that it shows the invention covered by the first claim, brOadly construed, but is admit- ted that it does ; nor but that it shows the invention covered by the second claim so construed ; nor is it expressly clainied that there is anything covered by the first claim which this exhibit does not show. It is said, however, in the brief of the orator, that — "It does not, however, meet the second claim, under the limited construction suggested above, inasmuch as the base is a collar and not a disk, and the spring amis are not riveted thereto. The importance o£ thia difference may beprop-: ��� �