650 FEDBRAIi REPORTER. �flifter, oalled, in the patent, a cuUender, shaken bymachin- ery ; thence over beaters, striking it on the under side, to set the flock in the adhesive material; thence under a brush to sweep its upper surface, and onward in the machine to re- ceiving cylinders. The stretoher supported the fabric between the distributing cylinder and the support beyond the beaters, and would steady it over the cylinder when struck by the beaters. �The plaiutiff's machine takes the fabric from a cylinder, on which it is wound, over a gumming table, rising about 25 degrees, where the adhesive material is distributed; thence over a roller above the Une of the table andnear to it; thence under a flock sifter and over beaters, striking it on the under side to set the flock; thence under a brush to sweep the upper surface, and over another supporting roller, and onward to receiving roUers. The roller near the gumming table sup- ports the fabric between the gumming table and the roller beyond the beaters, and steadies it when receiving the blows of the beaters. The distributing table, distributing devices, steadying roller, flock sifter, beaters, brush and carrying roUers of the plaintiff are each different in form from the distribut- ing cylinders, distributing devices, stretcher, cullender, beat- ers, brush and support beyond, of Sorel, yet each performs the same part in the operation of the machine. While, but for the machine of Sorel, so far as this case shows, the plaintiff would be entitled to a patent covering all similar machines doing the same thing in substantially the same way, still, in view of that machine, he is entitled to hold only the improve- ment in form of the different parts. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 554. �The defendants' machine has the same things except the brush, but nearly all different in form from the plaintiff's. Their guming table is level; instead of a steadying roller like the plaintiff's, it has a stretcher like Sorel's, but nearer to the beaters than either ; a different flock sifter and different beaters. �The fourth claim of the plaintiff's patent is for the use of ����
