H KESBON V. CARNBIGE. ���49 ���needle. In use, the receptacles in the pill-holder are filled with pills. ihe points of the needles are at distances apart from each other cor- responding with the distances between the pills, and are thrust into the pills until the face of the grooyed frame cornes against the face of the holder. The needle frame and the grooved frame are removed together, with the pills impaled on the needle points, and the pills are then dipped, in this condition, into the coating solution. There is the same combination as in the second claim of the plaintiff's patent, of comb-bar, needles, guiding groove, and pill receptacle. There is a merely formai change. The guiding groove, insteaid of
- being in the frame which contains the pill receptiacles, is in a frame
which is attached to the needle frame. But the grooves in the defend- daht's apparatus act to support the needles laterally against diverg. ing forces, and thus to guide them and insure their penetrating the pills properly. It must be held that the defendant's apparatus infringes the second claim of the plaintiffs' patent. The guiding grooves in it, by allowing the frame in which they are made to be drawn towards the pills, while impaled, and after they are dipped, permit such frame to be used as a stripjSer, to free the pilla from the needles ; but this is an additional function added to the use of the Cauhape inven- tion. The defendant's apparatus bas all the essential features of the combination covered by the second claim of the plaintiffs' patent, as before defined. �There is nothing in the provisional specification of Newton which phows the Cauhape invention, or the apparatus of the defendant, There are no drawings with it. The description is ambiguous, and it is far from clear how the apparatus was made. It is not a machine for making pills, but one for making capsules. There is no idea in it of a plurality of pills all impaled, and freed together. There are no guiding grooves, and no sharp-pointed needles or pins. �As to the Goward patent, Cauhape's application was filed before Goward's specification was sworn to. �As to the Murdoch and Haynes patent, the defendant bas intro- duced no evidence to show its bearing. On the contrary, the plai.i- tififs* expert shows that what is described in it bas no relevancy to either the plaintiffs' apparatus or the defendant's. �The Cordey apparatus amounts to no anticipation of either the plaintiffs' or the defendant's. No original apparatus is produced. The matter is one of recollection, after the lapse of many years. The v.9,no,l-^4: ��� �
