ZINN V. WEISS. ;919 �on the under side of the base in such a manner that the base and cap are held in connection with each other without any other fastening, while the cap is permitted to hinge directly upon the base, and so to close upon a stud or abutment, as the case may be. i^ividently the Messer olasp accomplishes the same resuit as the Eohlman clasp, but it accomplishes this resuit by different means. The base and cap in the Messer clasp are not equivalent to the base, cap, and box in the Kohlman clasp. In the Kohlman clasp the cap does not engage with the base, as in the Messer clasp. In the Kohlman clasp the cap and box are connected together by means of ears, and the box secured to the base. In the Mes- ser clasp no ears are employed, and the cap is held in imme- diate connection with the base by the operation of the spring upon the tail -piece of the cap. These differences are sub- stantial. By means of these a olasp is produced costing less to manufacture, while at . the same time it is more durable, for all danger of the box working loose from the base is avoided, — a resuit fatal to the efficiencyoftheKohlmanclasp. The importance of these differeiices is proved by the fact that the plaintiff does not seek to restrain the manufacture or sale of the Kohlman clasps, and the further faot that the Kohl- man clasps are no longer in the market, while there is a demand for the plaintiffs' clasp. �I am of the opinion, therefore, that the plaintiffs' clasp is not anticipated by the Kohlman clasp, and that the Kohl- man clasp affords no ground upon which to hold the Messer patents void for want of novelty. My conclusion, therefore, is that the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunctiou. ��� �
