and ie iiot -a roller» in the defendartt's m^eliine, ife of^no iiuportauee, that being amereimatter of friptioni : iSd/4ctioH by weigbt in th« formor, and by'a'Bpring in^the latter^imakes no diffei-ence. Onthcoquestiou of noveltyi it is suffieient to say that none 6i the clirimis of theJBachelder patent are anticipated by Thimonier, or HowCj or Mouey & Johnson, or Conant. The claims of the' patent are for combinations of mechanisna. Those combinations have^meceBs'arily, certain functions and modes of operation,' "whieh a*e set f orth in the specification. But the claimecare net ciaiina to functions or resiiltSi The combinations in any inf ringing machine must^ of course, to infringe, hiave the same futictiohs and modes of operation which the Bachelder combinations have; but, in addition, the means must be substantially the same. �There must be a deeree for the plaintifs as to all tha claims. . * ���Knapp V. JouBERT and otljera. , �{Circuit Court, N. Di New Tork. Aprll, 1881.) �i. CoMBiNATioN Patent— SIbchanicaii Equivalents— Improtbmbnt m BucKBOAKD Wagons. The subject of the complainant'a patent was an improvement in . , buckboard wagons, whereby a sustaining sgriag pr springs were, em- pioyed to supplement the functions of the buckboard, bracing it at its center of pressure, and yielding with it at its ends, in response to the pressure at the center. Held, that, as the complainaht \vas the Hrst to employ the sutaining spring for the pecuuliar fupction ■nrhich it performed, he was to be protected not only in the particular devices which he employed for that purpbse, but against all other devices which were the mechanical' equivalents ofhls.— [Ed. �iV. Daue/iporf j for complainant. . �Esek Gowen, for defendants. • ^ �Wallace, D. J. I am - of opinion that the defendants' buckboard wagon, manufaoturedunderitheir patent of Janu- 3.ry, 27, l'SSO, is an infringenient of the complainant's patent ol September 29, 1874. The subject of the complainant's ��� �
