Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/222

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

BIOEFOBD ». IiAPOBTB. 216 �and different features or not. The legal presumption is always in favor of the re-issue, and that it is for the same invention as the original; and the defendant not fumishing the court with the means and opportunity of deciding the question by a comparison of the two, it must be held that this branch of the defence has failed, and that the complainant is entitled to hold, and to carry back to the respective dates of the original patents, ail that the re-issues claim. �This may have an important bearing upon that part of the defence, which relates to the priority of invention by other patentees; for, not including the distinct! ve claims of the complainant's patent No. 162,886, ail his other patents an- ticipate inventions which are subsequent to the month of July, 1869. �1. As to the infringement. The essential parts of the pat- ents of the complainant, when embodied and combined in a working machine for knitting, show a needle cylinder, in com- bination with a eylinder carrying cams, which actuate the needles, and a sliding ring to which the yarn carrier is se- cured, together with a ring clasp for keeping the needles in position. A machine (Bxhibit E) was put in evidence which was constructed in accordance with the claims of his several patents. It consisted of a stationary needle cylinder, grooved to hold the needles in a vertical position. Around this was a rotary cylinder, with a portion of its periphery formed with a projection, on which the heels of the needles rested. To this cylinder were attached the actuating cams, which oper- ated on the heels or butts of the needles, and which accom- plished the knitting by the alternate elevation and depression of the needles. �The defendant also brought in machines (Nos. 2e and 25) to show what he was manufacturing and selling. Being re- quested by his counsel to point out in what respects they dif- fered from the Bickford machine, he replied that in No. 24, instead of the swing cam, he used a curved piece of metal, secured to the cylinder, the ends of which projected above the needle rest ; and that in No. 25 he used the swing cam siu»- ilar to those in the Leech machine ; but, instead of emplôying ����