Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/775

760 FEDBEAIi EEPOETER. �inal patent, bythe introduction of the "lay" of a loom as one element of the combination, unduly limited the invention. The plaintiflfs also insist that while the word "loom," as defined in the dictionaries, or when used technically, does not include a knitting-machine ; yet, as used in the shops and in the patent-office, it does include such ma- chine ; but that this is immaterial, for whoever uses the loom take-up and employa the same combination in a knitting-machine to take up the fabric is an infringer, and that the crank-rod of the defendant's device, by which power is communicated to the pawl-lever, is the obvions mechanical equivalent of the lay and pitman of the Holmes device. �In my opinion the case turns upon the question, what was the invention which was described, either clearly or faintly, in the orig- inal patent ? It is true that the actual invention of Holmes could have been applied to knitting-machines, and if the patentee had known the extent of his invention he could properly have made a broader claim, which would have been valid; but the point is whether it does not appear from the patent that the only invention which was the subject of the application was one applicable only to the weaving of cloth, and therefore whether a broad reissue is not faulty in that it contains an invention which was neither suggested nor applied for in the original application, but which is such an addition to the invention, as originally claimed, as to be properly the subject of a new patent. �Starting with the fact that whatever may be either the commer- cial or technical meaning of the word "loom," the meaning of "loom for weaving cloth" is very obvions, and with the additional fact that a knitting-machine is a structure of altogether different character from a weaving-loom, except that each machine produces cloth and needs a take-up, did the original patent indicate, suggest, or hint that the invention was anything but an adjunct to looms for weaving? The original application was strictly confined to such machines, and fora manifest reason. In cloth-weaving, whenever a thread of filling is passed between the threads of warp the lay is thrown forward and beats the thread of filling against the edge of the newly-woven cloth. The old take-ups made use of the constantly-reourring for- ward motion of the lay to turn the cloth-beam and to keep the yarn tant, for in a loom take-up the movement of the lay is the natural source of motion for the take-up mechanism. The inventor wanted to improve the existing device so that a better device or an improyed ��� �