HA.MMBESCHLAG V. GAKRETT. 479 �for want of equity. Holbeck bas passed out of the case. The eill has been heretofore voluntarily dismissed as to him, so that it is a controversy between Gottfried and Miller alone. �The attempted revocation by Gottfried in March, 1875, of the as-, signment of the patent whieh he had granted to Holbeck in Decem- ber, 1870, cannot, I think, in view of all that subsequently occurred with the apparent acquiescence of Gottfried, be held to restore the lat- ter's original title. �Note. The decree entered by the circuit court in pursnnnce of the above decision has been, at the present term of the supreme court of the United States, affirmed by that court. ���Hammerschlag V. Gaerett and others.' (Ovrcuit Court, E. D. Fennsj/lvania. January 23, 1882.) �1. Pkocess — Infkingement. �In a patent for a process, every successive step emimerated in the claim mnst be regarded as an essential part, and must be employed by defendants, in order to render them liable to the charge of infringement. �2. Manufactoke of Waxed Pafbb. �The process of making waxed paper by machinery, patented in reissue No. 8,460, held not to cover all methods of mailing waxed paper by machinery, and not to be infringed by the manufacture of waxed paper according to a method which dispenses with some of the material steps in the process covered by such reissue. �Motion for an Attachment. �Upon a bill filed by complainant a final decree had been entered restraining respoudents from infringing complainant's reissued let- ters patent No. 8,460, for improvement in waxing paper. Eeported in 9 Fbd. Bep. 43. Subsequently respondents constructed another machine for making waxed paper, whereupon complainants applied for an attachment, alleging that this latter machine was within the prohibition of the decree. The facts are suf&oiently set forth in the opinion. �Frost d- Coe and John K. Valentine, for complainants. �Collier & Bell, for respondents. �*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �
