804 FBDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �wouli have been more convenient and obvions to say so, in- atead of giving a description of folding chairs, which em- braces a larger number. �It was said at the hearing that Judge Shepley had pro- nounced an unhesitating opinion that this claim was void. I so hold. �Unfortunately my predecessor, thoiigh he heard a reargu- ment upon the first claim, did not decide that part of the case, His impression, perhaps, was that this claim was like- wise void ; but he gave no opinion, and rendered no general decree in the case. �I have examined the evidence and the arguments with care, and I am of opinion that there was both novelty and utility in the subject of the first claim, and that it bas been infringed. Many chairs had been made that resembled the plaintiff's in many particulars, and which might easily have been so modified as to embody his invention ; but they do not appear to have been so modified before his time. �The question of novelty, including in that word the discov- ery or invention which will be suffieient to support a patent, is often a very difficult one to decide. Invention often in- volves a new resuit, first thought of by the patentee ; and in such cases the faet that the meohanical changes he bas made are not difficult, is often unimportant. The cases in which invention is wanting are usually those in which the resuit is old in kind, and the change of means is obvions, or bas been used in analogous machines or articles, and then the smallness of the change is very likely to be decisive against the patent. �This case seems to me to fall within the former class. �By Eev. St. § 4922, the complainant cannot recover costs. �Decree for the complainant, without costs. ����
