608 FEDERAL EBPOETBB. �aient. Densmore v. Schofield, 4 Fish. 148; Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. 341 ; Eames v. Godfrey, 1 Wall. 78. �The complainant maintains, in the first place, that the defendant's pen is an infringement of claims 1, 2, and 4 of reissued letters patent No. 9,716, which are as follows: �"(1) In a fouiitain pen, the combination of a tubular point, a spindle adapted thereto, and connected to an independently-moving spindle carrier, said spindle carrier being adjustable in relation to a iixed part of the pen, whereby the movement of the apindle may be changea, and the wear thereof compensated, as set forth. (2) The combination of the spindle carrier, C, loosely-attached spindle, B, and ink-delivery tube. A, substantially as de- scribed. (4) The combination of the spindle carrier, C, spindle, B, and adjust- Ing screw, E, substantially as described." �It is not contended that Cross was the inventer of the principal elements of the fountain pen, such as the air tube, gravitating valve, spindle or needle, etc. ; but the improvements worked out by Cross in this patent are, in brief , putting a screw in the upper end of the valve or carrier to regulate the rise of the valve f rom its seat ; putting a screw in the lower end of the valve or carrier to regulate the length of the needle ; and attaching the needle to the valve by a swivel joint, to give a freer play to the ueedle. A glance at the defendant's pen shows that it is different in form and construction. The valve which regulates the supply of ink in the complainant's pen being raised by pressing the point of the spindle or writing pen upon the paper, thus letting in the ink, and which falls by the action of gravity upon its seat, when no such pressure is exerted, thus cutting off the flow, and which was deemed indispensable in all the earlier fountain pens, is done away with in the pen of the defendant. A spiral spring, to which the needle is attached, is substituted, and this spring inserted in a small tube, which is securely held by a supporting post. No screw is attached to the lower end of the spring to regulate the length of the needle, and it is questionable, to say the least, whether the screw at the upper end of the spring, which serves to plug up at that end the small tube which holds the spring, performs the same func- tion as in the complainant's patent. �A combination which includes as one of its principal elements a valve or spindle carrier of the kind described in the above claims in the complainant's invention, can hardly be said to be the same as a combination which dispenses with this, and substitutes another ele- ment of entirely different character, not to mention other less impor- tant changes in the construction of defendant's pen. Grave doubt, ��� �
