Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/202

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

laU FEDERAL REPORTER. �tendency of the needle to spdng back. Hence.there is no departure in the re-issue from the original, whioh in anj man- ner affects the validity of the third claim of the re-issue, and the needle-guide of that claim muat properly be construed as a needle-guide which prevents the glaneing of the needle from the braid, although it may not also spring the needle over towards the roller, and although it may not vibrate. It fol- lowa, also, from the foregoing observations, that the needle mentioned in the first three claims is not required to be a vi- brating needle. The vibrating needle is a special construction, and is a feature of claim 4. The needle of the first three claims is a non- vibrating needle. The second gauge for the upper braid in the Bosworth machine is shown in the draw- ings of the original specification, and it was proper to describe it in the re-issue. �The defendant's machine bas an eye-pointed needle. It bas a device, over which the braid is bent, which is an equiv- alent for the Bosworth roller ; the lower end of it, over which the braid to be sewed is bent, being rounded, and the axis of such lower end being substantially at right angles to the line of movement of the work. The point of the needle, pass- ing in a straight line through the bend of the material, comes out on the same side of the material as that at which it en- tered. The feed apparatus is an equivalent for that of Bos- worth, The adjustable gauge for the fresh braid is substan- tially the same as Bosworth's gauge for the upper braid. The guide for the partially-completed work is substantially the same as Bosworth's guide for the lower braid. The addi- tional gauge for the other edge of the fresh braid is like Bos- worth's additional gauge for the other edge of the upper braid. The needle-guide and its operation have already been consid- ered. It follows, from these considerations, that the defend- dant's machine infringes the first three claims of No. 7,985. In se holding, I have not overlooked the changes of form before alluded to, nor the facts that the defendant's machine sews a hat from the center of the crown outwardly to the brim, Tith the fabric lying right side up on the bed-plate, while the ��� �