EKETT V. QUINTARD. ���l'id ���upper end of the blocks being inwardly and downwardly inclined, and forming, in the language of the plaintiffs' expert, "an annular de- flector -which surrounds the cone at a prescribed distance from its base." �In considering the question of infringement of the fifth claim, first, upon the theory that the different guiding devices of theGill machine are the four sides of the Wells trunk, when taken apart, it cannot be denied that the various parts of the Gill mechanism perform the office of guiding the fur into the case to a point or points where it can be influenced by the exhaust mechanism, and that the deflectors of the Gill machine perform the office of coneentrating the fur upon the different parts of the cone where it is desired that the thicker por- tion- of the bat shall be deposited; and it may also be conceded that the extensible plate of the Gill machine, which receives the fur from the rolating brush, performs the office of the top plate of the Wells trunk with its hood, and in substantially the same way. �The plaintiffs insist that the annular ledges near the bottom of the Gill case are the equivalent of the hinges upon the end of the bottom plate of the Wells machine. This similarity relates only to the end of the bottom plate. It is net claimed that the Gill machine bas that portion of the bottom plate of the Wells machine which is be- tween the picker and the hinged flap. �It is next claimed that the side guides of the two machines are the same. The side pieces of the Wells trunk converge as they approach the cone both horizontally and vertically, and guide the fur in a direc- tion towards the side of the cone ; and it is admitted that this con- vergence may be essential in the form in which the Wells machine is organized, as shown in the patent. But it is claimed that the side guides of the Gill machine are connected with the top of the case, and that the case, with its convcrging walls, forms a continua- tion of these guides down to the annular deflector inside of the case, and that the Gill case is in one respect a "tunnel" which confines the fur-bearing current and prevents the lateral escape of the fur from the influence of the exhaust current, and, in that respect, performs, as to the vertical downward current of fur, the function which the side guides in the Wells machine peform as to the horizontal current of fur in that machine. �The decisions of the supreme court in regard to the Wells inven- tion and reissue restrict the invention, as secured by the patent, within narrow limits, as compared with those which were placed npon the patent at the earlier trials. Bearing in mind the limita- ��� �
