402 FEDERAL REPORTER. �similar lining on the face of the buckram, to whicTi the flock is not applied, with the napped face of the canton flannel exposed, and noc next to the buck- ram. �The Kendall turban, defendants' Exbibit No. 3, bas no side crown or brim. Irrespective of thia, it ia not satisfactorily established that tbat article had in it any stockinet support, or anything but canton flannel, with flock applied, directly to the unnapped face of the can- ton flannel. Bracher'a frame, No. 6, if made with the unnapped face of the canton flannel exposed, had only flock enough put on the buck- ram to take an impression of the straw braid, and was made, not for use in that condition as a bat, but solely to be stamped as an imita- tion of a straw bat. The flock was put on only as a pulp on which to emboss, and the flock, by the embossing, lost its identity and parted with all resemblance to fait. The Morse bat, No. 13, is a flocked buckram hat, with a strip' of canton flannel put in separately as a brim. Hats such as the Novelty Company bats of 1876, made of canton flannel, muslin, and flock, with the napped face of the can- ton flannel not exposed, were not the Gray hat. It is plain that cementing the nap to the buckram tended to destroy the pliability or Boftness aimed at by Gray, by reason of the absorption of the nap by the cernent, and that there could be no appear&nco of napped felt. �The case is one where there was sufficient invention to support the patent, and there must be a decree for the plaintiiis, with costs. ���DowNTON V, The Yabgbb Millinq Co. �(Circuit Court, E. D. MisBouri. Maroh 28, 1879.) �1. Lbttebb Patent— Middlingb Floub. �Certain instruments, aet out infull in the opinion delivered by the court, held not to amount to such an assignment by Downton, a patentee for a process patent, of which the claim is for manufacturing middlings flour by passing the middlings Ihrough or between rolls, of his right as patentee, as to preolude him from suing third parties who infringe his patent. �In Equity. �W. G. Rainey, for complainant. �G. M. Stewart, for respondent. �DiLLON, G. J., [orally.) We are prepared to announce our conclu- sions in the case of Downton v. The Yaeger Milling Co. This is a bill in equity by the complainant, as the patentee in a certain patent granted by the United States for an invention, — in charaoter a pro- cess patent,— against the Yaeger Milling Company for iufringing the ��� �
