Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/169

154r FEDEEA.L BEPOKTEB. �to show that the plaintiffs' claim and patent should be. confined to the "metallic frame-work." But adopting this view would not help the defendants. The fact.that they have copied the "metallic frame- work," would remoiin. We say copied, because this, in effect, is what they have doue. There is no material difference between the two devices. The mechanical difference in construction, is unimportant. When constructed, — considered as instruments for the use contem- plated,— they are substantially identical. �The meshes, or open spaees, in the "metallic frame-work," are covered by the claim, though the pateijt may not be conuned to them. The methodof construction specified produces meshes, and the model filed exhibits them. That their uses are not speciued is unimportant» The plaintiffs have the benefit of all uses to which they'can be applied. The ingenious argument based on a different view of the patent thua loses its effect. ���Illingworth V. Spauldikg, Jennixgs & Go, {Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. July 23, 1881.) �1. Lettehs Patent — Prei,imihabt Injunction. �A preliininary injunction will not ^e granted where the deiendant's afflda- vits make out a case of Teasonable doubt as to the novelty of the complainant's- patent. �2. Same— Same. �Semble that the same rule applies as to its vaiidity. �In Equity. �Nixon, D. J. This is an application for a preliminary injunotion. None should ever be granted where the answering affidavits of the defendants show a reasonable doubt about the novelty or vaiidity of the complainant's patent. This was done at the hearing by exhibit- ing a certified copy of English letters patent No. 3,801, for improve- ments in the manufacture of plated and gilded ingots ot iron and steel, and in the moulds used for that purpose, ceded to William Morse on the nineteenth of May, 1874. After an inspection and examination of the provisional and complete specifications and draw- ings of the said Morse patent on the argument, I intimated that they suggested a sufficient uneertainty in regard to the novelty of the complainant's patent to warrant the court in refusing the applica- tion. The counsel for the complainant afterwards submitted to me several affidavits, taken without notice, and purporting to be verified ��� �