224 FBDBBAL REFORTEiB �The first two daims of the patent are found only în the reissue, The third and fourth claims were in the original patent. Judge Blodgett is evidently of opinion that the end bars of the first claim must be the "inolined double end bars" of the third claim, and that the standard of the second claim must be adjustable on the side bars, so as to permit the en- closed end bars to be set a suitable distance apart, substan- tially as stated in the fourth claim. The point in dispute between the parties in this case, upon the question of infringe- ment, is in regard to .the inclination of the end rails. It is admitted that the frame which is produced is a fair sample of the articles made by the defendants. The end rails are certainly incliiied, not nearly to su eh an extent as in the plaintifif's bed frames, but they are plainly inclined, so that the strain of the bed bottom comes upon the double end of the end bar, and the under side of the fabric does not rest substantially upon the end bars. How this inclination is effected was not made clear. I do not think that it results from the strain of the fabric upon an uninclined bar. The bar must be inclined when the frame and the fabric are put together, �Upon the question of novelty the old bed frame which came from Baltimore did not impress me as originally and design- edly having inclined end bars. If- the end bars are now inclinedl think such inclination is the resuit of wear and tear. �An injunction should issue against violation of the first and third clauses of claim. ��� �
