WILSON V. COON. 627 �477; Hall v. Bird, 6 Blatchf. 438; Cahoon v. Eing, 1 CM. 692, 611, 612; andHartshorn v. Tripp, 7 Blatchf. 120. �The same observations dispose of the cntting out of the four -in -h and collars whieh Parker eaused to be done. �The duplex-curve collar, of wbich the Umpire, Exhibit No. 9, may be taken as a specimen, does not anticipate the Wil- son invention. As before remarked, it is not the design or outline of the whole collar, coinposed of body and band, that is patented by Wilson. The duplex-curve collar has no such arrangement of band as the Wilson collar has, It has a band of substantially uniform width, though not a straight band, the lower line of the band being a duplex eurve, and the upper Une corresponding with the lower line, as far as the upper Une extends. This is, doubtless, the "old-style curved band," mentioned in the Wilson specifications. There is novelty and utility in the Wilson collar, resulting from the bands in it, beyond what is found in the duplex-curve collar; and, besides that, the 4uplex-curve collar did not have the button- hole in the body of the collar. �Defendants' Ei^hibits Nos. 22, 23, and 24, and the English Lawrence patent, do not anticipate the Wilson invention, as clearly appears from the testimony, in connection with plain- tifi's Exhibits N N, 0, P P, Q Q, and E E. �The plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit in his own name. It is not shown that any one else has any title in the patent. There must be a decree in favor of the plaintiff for a perpetuai injunction, and an account of profits and dam- ages, with costs. ��� �
