Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/167

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

160 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ished vibration îs very small, if any. Sawyer's spîndle goea to the top of his bobbin, and his advantage is gained by ele- yating the bearing of his bolster, which affects both the out- aide and the inside of the bobbin; and whatevea: advantage Pearl had was a different one, and was made. on a different theory, that of lightening the spindle with the bobbin. The blade of the Sawyer spindle is not shortened, except upon the assumption that earrying up the bolster is the same thing as cutting ofif a piece of the spindle, which, perhaps, it might be if Pearl had eut off his bobbin, too ; as Judge Shepley said to the defendants in the Coventry case, "Cut oiï your bobbin, and you will not infringe," or to that effect. But the organization of Pearl -would not admit of this change. �The plaintiffs argue, and, indeed, rest theîr case upon the argument, that the tubular bolster of Sawyer was well knowu in 1870, and may, therefore, be substituted in Pearl's com- bination by mere construction, leaving it the same as before. There is no doubt that such a form of bolster and bobbin was known before in some other kinds of spinning, but it is not proved that it had ever been used in a ring-frame ; that it could be so used without invention; that any such bobbin had been made with adhesive bearings; or that it was so well known that it had become a mere question of construction which form should be adopted. Indeed, the contrary of ail this may be fairly inferred from the evidence. Therefore, when the plaintiff's invention bas been reduced to the nar- row combination, which is ail that the evidence now permits, they cannot fairly claim to embrace, as a known substitute, a bolster and bobbin so different from their own. I am much inclined to consider this combination a different one, mechan- ically speaking, however well known the Sawyer bolster and bobbin may have been; but this need not be decided. While I am thus of opinion with the defendants in the most impor- tant part of their cases, it seems to me that they bave added the Pearl combination to that of Sawyer in the use of certain spindles and bobbins, which the evidence declares them to bave used to a greater or less extent. The bobbins, in the instances referred to, bave a chamber of some substantial ����