750 fedebaXi am'o&TEs. �Bruce v. Maeder and others.* �(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. February 22, 1882.) �1. Letters Patent— Improvbmbnt in Printing Types— Patbntabilitt. �Letters patent No. 139,365, granted David W. Bruce, May 27, 1873, for an " improvement in printing types," are not void forwant of patentability as being merely for increasing the size of types for figures, nor, when construed in connection with the specillcation, are they anticipated by the fact that types for figures cast with the body of the type two-thirds the width of the body of the line, were known and in use before. �In Equity. �Bmj. F. Lee, for orator. �H. F. Pultzs, for defendants. �Wheelbr, D. J. This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 1 39,- 365, dated May 27, 1873, granted to the orator for an improvement in printing types. The improvement consists in having types for figures cast two-thirds the width of the body, which is the height of the type, and with correspondingly larger faces, whereby the type can be more readily set, because they can be justified, as printers say, by two of the ordinary three-in-em spaces, and because the print is much more legible. The defonces are want of patentability of invention and want of novelty. The claim in controversy of the patent is for "figures and fractions in printing-type cast upon a block equal to two-thirds the width of the body of the ' em ' or standard type. " �If this claim was to stand upon its own terms merely it would cover only the size of the body of type on which figures are cast, and not the size of the figures themselves, as cast upon the body, and the pat- ent as involved here would have to be considered in that view. But the specification sets forth the old method of casting type for figures, and the indistinctness on account of smallness of the figures as one of the disadvantages of that method, and then proceeds : "To obvi- ate this indistinctness I construct the figures broader by casting them two-thirds of the width of the body," etc., and refers to the aceom- panying drawings, which show large-faced figures contrasted with small ones as a part of the improvement. The claim is to be read in con- nection with the specification as if there was added to it the phrase "as specified," or "as set forth." Read in that light the claim is for the broader figures,- as well as for the broader body of the type. �*ileported by S. Kelson White, Esq., of the New York bar. ��� �
