Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/465

450 FEDERAL RBPOBTES. �figure in this cq,se. Nearly every patented device, in order to apply it or make it operative, requires the use, in connection with what is cov- ered by the patent, of something which is old, as in this case. Some- ihing to attach the yoke or bailitu the,neok of the bottle isnecessary, and the proof shows the complainant and defendant both made these fasteners complete, -with the wire collar or band to go around the neck of the bottle, so that it could be applied ready for use by merely closing : the collar around the neck. In manufacturing his fasteners thus ready for use, complainant made the profit found by the mas- ter, and it is no answer to eomplainant's claim for damages that every operative part of his fastener was not covered by his patent. He madethem according to his patent, and sold them. The defend- ant, jnstead of buying from complainant, made his own fasteners in complete similitude of eomplainant's patent, and thereby damaged the complainant. �, In other words, the complainant, by making fasteners complete for use under his patent, made a profit, and the defendant, by wrong- fully using eomplainant's patent, deprived him of a portion of the profits which he would otherwise have made. �The exceptions are overruled, the report of the master confirmed, and a decree will be entered fixing the eomplainant's damages at $8,585.11, to be paid with interest from the date of the report. ���Edgarton and others v. Fuest & Beadley Mandf'g Co. and �others. �{Ctrenit Court, N. T>. Illinois. July 19, 1881.) �1. Lettbbs Patent— Hoksk Hat-Rakes. �Lettei's patent granted to Geotge Whitcomb, October 5, 1858, for an improve- ment, in liorse laaj'-rakes, are invalid beeausethe improvement was in public use more than two years prier to the application for a patent. �2. COMITT. �Circuit courts will follow the decisions in other circuits, only where the same questions were raised on substantially the same evidence. �3. PisclAimbr— Reibsueb. .; .. ', �A patentee eannot claim in a reissue what he disclaimed in the original. �4. Glaims— VoiD FOB Uncbrtainty. „ �Claims must be certam. Thercfore, the claim for the arrangement ot the rake-head, E, and foot-treadle«, H J and G K, or either, in relation to each other, and the axle, B, substantially as and for the purpose described, is void for uncertainty, because it does not appear whether the patentee intended to cover, by this claim, the two treadles working together for their diiierent pur- poses, or whether he intended to cover each one as a separate deviee. ��� �