132 FEDEBAIi BeFOBTSS. �thai for all practical purposes the series of small arcs bas tHe appear- ance of a straight line, at least when the sewing is fine, and is equally acceptable to the trade. Besides, the patentee describes fully in his specification a knife and its attachments in which the line of eut is absolutely straight. In short, the differences between the two machines appear to be merely changes in the position of the working parts, so far as the plaintiff's patent is concerned, though by these changes some improvement may, perhaps, have been aceomplished. �I decide, therefore, that the defendant has infringed the first, eec- ond, and eighth claims of the reissued patent No. 7,860. �Deoree for the oomplainant. ���Stockton V. Maddock^ �{Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. September 22, 1881.) �1. liETTBKS Patent — Water-Closbt — Infringement. �The first claim of letters patent No. 155,814, for an improvement in water- elosets, construed not to necessarily include the tube, m, as one of the elements of the combination described in it, and held, that the combination is patenta- ble and infringed by the defendant. �In Equity. �James Buchanan, for complainant. �Edwin H. Brown, for defendant. �Nixon, D. J. This suit is for an alleged infringement of the first claim of certain letters patent. No. 155,814, granted to the complain- ant October 13, 1874, for "improvement in water-elosets." Four defenees are set up in the answer : First, that the complainant was not the original and first inventer of the invention claimed in the let- ters patent ; second, prior use of the alleged invention ; tkiy-d, want of utility; and, fourth, non-infringement. The first claim of the patent, which the defendant is charged with infringing, is as follows : �"(1) In combination with the main-bowl, A, tangential receiving nozzle, B, and Connecting opening, a, the spreader and showeret, C, formed in one with the bowl, and adapted to confine the water and project it circularly from the aperture, M, as and for the purposes herein specified." �Both parties concede that the claim is for a combination ; the ex- pert of the complainant insisting that the combination has four mem- ��� �
