916 FEDEEAL REPORTER. �javr. This construction is an equivalent construction for the closing of the lower jaw within the upper jaw, as shown in No. 156,429, and in the drawings of No. 202,735. The bending of the fabric, in the one case transversely and in the other case longitudinally, assists in holding it, though it by no means follows that No. 202,735 would not be infringed if the clasps had flush-meeting edges in the jaws, with a spring, or means of holding them together, sufBciently power- ful. No. 1 is a sleeve supporter having at each end of a piece of elas- tic webbing a clasp made of two jaws of springy metal, the end of each of which is a lip projecting towards the other jaw, one lip shut- ting inside of the other and the ends of the lips not meeting. There is a slide enclosing the shank of the two jaws, and the bite is made by sliding the slide towards the lips, which forces the lips together. Sliding the slide in the reverse direction allows the jaws to open, which they do by their springy action, they being set to stand open unless made to shut. They shut against the action of the spring, while in the plaintiff's form the clasp opens against the action of the spring. �The form of clasp in No. 1 is substantially the clasp shown in the Ellis patent, No. 137,539, granted April 8, 1873. But that patent shows that Ellis contemplated the use of only one clasp, and that at the top of a stocking, while above the supporter was to be attached by a button to a waistband. No. 1 has all the points of advantage of the plaintiff's structure. It has an automatio clasping device at each end, consisting of clamping jaws, and the structure as a whole, and in its parts, and in their oo-operation to effect the resuit produced by the whole, is the equivalent of the plaintifi's structure. The change in the springy action, to hold open instead of to hold shut, is imma- terial in regard to the action of the structure as a whole. There was nothing in the Ellis clasp by itself to indicate the plaintiff's supporter or No. 1, any more than there was anything in the plaintiff's clasp by itself to indicate the plaintiff's supporter or No. 2. On the foregoing considerations it must be held that both No. 1 and No. 2 infringe the second claim of No. 202,735, and there must be a decree to that effect, and for an account of profits and damages, with a perpetuai injunction, and costs to the plaintiff. ��� �
