distinct from that to which the same question was directed in the decision of the case to which we have referred. The correct inquiry, from our point of view, is not whether this appellee uses, in its mechanism of mediate connection, the same devices which are used by the appellants, or equivalents thereof, but whether the mediate connection employed by the appellee is not itself an equivalent of the mediate connection of the Campbell combination. It may be conceded that there are marked differences in the details by which this connection is made, and its purpose accomplished, in the one apparatus and in the other; but the manifestly well-founded expert testimony is that "a mediate connection," not the details thereof, is included among the elements of the Campbell machine. This element, as well as all others of the patented invention, are found in the appellee's apparatus. We attach no importance to the fact that in the appellants' machine the drawer is released upon downward pressure of the key, while in that of the appellee it is released as the finger leaves the key to which the pressure is applied. In both, the drawer is opened by what is substantially one and the same act,— the operation of a key of the series. Though some of the corresponding parts of the machinery are not the same, and, separately considered, could not be regarded as identical or conflicting, yet, having the same purpose in the combination, and effecting that purpose in substantially the same manner, they are the equivalents of each other in that regard. Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780. We are of opinion that the combination here claimed is infringed by the apparatus used by the appellees. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with costs, and it is ordered that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be there taken in pursuance of this determination and judgment of this court, and in conformity with this opinion. BAUMER v. WILL et al. (Circuit Court, N. D. New York. December 23, 1892.) No. 5,881. 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTION-LIMITATION OF CLAIM-PRIOR ART-CANDLE-SHAPING MACHINE. Letters patent No. 330,200, issued November 10, 1885, to Anton F. Baumer, cover an apparatus for shaping candles, comprising a tubular holder with a die at one end and a plunger at the other, whereby the final shape and finish are given both to the ends of the candles and to the exterior circumference of its body. Held, that if the patent is sustainable at all, in view of the fact that similar candles had been before made, and that machines for molding and pressing plastic material by means of a die and plunger were well known, it is entitled only to a narrow construction, and the patentee is not entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents. 2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT. The patent is not infringed by a machine having a single die for molding the foot of a candle, the tip being meanwhile held firmly by a cushion which prevents the candle from slipping, but does not impart any form or finish to the tip, and in which the holder embraces only a part of the candle, and is not adapted to smooth or finish the exterior thereof. In Equity. Suit by Anton F. Baumer against Louis Will and others for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed C. H. Duell, for complainant. Smith & Denison, for defendants. COXE, District Judge. This is an equity action for the infringement of letters patent No. 330,200, granted to Anton F. Baumer, November 10, 1885, for an improved apparatus for shaping and finishing candles. "The purpose of the invention is to apply the final shape and finish to the exterior, and more particularly to the ends, of candles molded or otherwise formed approximately to shape' The invention consists "In an apparatus comprising a tubular holder for embracing the body of the candle, a die at one end of said holder, and a plunger at the opposite end of the same, whereby the candle is compressed endwise between said die and plunger, which impart the firal shape and finish to the ends of the candle, and at the same time expand the candle circumferentially in the tubular holder, which straightens, smooths and finishes the exterior of the body of the candle; and the invention also consists in certain auxiliary devices connected with the aforesaid apparatus." The claims involved are as follows: "(1) An apparatus for shaping candles, comprising a tubular holder for embracing the body of the candle, a die at one end of said holder, and a plunger in the opposite end of the same, substantially as set forth and shown. (2) The combination of the tubular candle holder, dies at opposite ends of said holder, and a plunger carrying one of said dies, as and for the purpose specified." "(4) The combination of the tubular candle holder, a conical die at one end of said holder and corrugated longitudinally to taper and corrugate the foot of the candle, a concaved die in the opposite end of the holder to taper the top of the candle, and a plunger carrying one of said dies, substantially as set forth and shown." The defenses are lack of novelty and invention and noninfringement. In 1865 John Lyon Field, an Englishman, made and patented a candle with an enlarged corrugated foot made in the shape of an inverted frustum of a cone so that it would fit the socket of any candlestick. The Field candle was made in a mold. The patentee makes a candle precisely similar in appearance, but by a different method. He takes an ordinary molded candle, and, in order to make the enlarged foot, forces the lower end into a die shaped exactly like the lower end of the mold in which the Field candle must have been made. The product is the same in both instances. The patentee's candle is no better than Field's candle. The method of making the former would seem to be more cumbersome and expensive. If there be any advantage in putting the candle through two manipulations where one would suffice, it is neither pointed out in the patent nor was it explained at the argument. The thing produced being old, and dies for making articles similar in character being well known, the patent would seem to be dangerously near the doctrine of the Bretzel Case. Bretzels were old and dies for cutting dough were old; it was, therefore, held that it was not invention to make a die that would cut a bretzel. Butler v. Steckel, 137 U. S. 21, 29, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25. But in any view the invention is a narrow one. The prior art was full of machines for molding and pressing plastic material by means of a die and plunger. Several of these machines are shown in the record. It is entirely clear that the patent cannot have a broad construction and that the doctrine of equivalents cannot be invoked to bring within the claims structures which do not contain the features expressly made a part of the claims. Derby v. Thompson, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 181. Confining the claims to the apparatus described, the defendants do not infringe. They do not use a holder which imparts a final finish to the candle, for the reason that it does not completely inclose the candle. They do not employ two dies at opposite ends of the holder. They have a single die at one end for molding the coneshaped foot, after the wax has been softened to make it plastic. While this operation is being carried on, the tip of the candle is held firmly in a cushion or bearing to prevent the candle from slipping when subjected to the action of the plunger at the other end. This bearing or cushion does not impart any form or finish to the tip of the candle as does the complainant's die; its office is solely to hold the candle in place. The first claim contains the following elements: First, a tubular holder for embracing the body of the candle, second, a die at one end of the holder, and, third, a plunger at the opposite end. A machine which infringes this claim must be constructed with the die and the plunger at opposite ends of the holder. The cushioned support used by the defendants is not a die. Therefore there is no die opposite the plunger end of their holder. Indeed, it is doubtful if they employ the first element of the claim. Their holder embraces a part of the candle only; it is not adapted to straighten, smooth or finish the exterior of the candle, or permit it to expand circumferentially. The upper part of the candle is not touched by the holder in any way. Of course, if the first claim is not infringed neither of the others is, as both of them describe a holder with two dies, one at each end. The defendants, as has been seen, use an apparatus having but one die. The bill is dismissed. LALANCE & GROSJEAN MANUFG CO. v. HABERMANN MANUF'G CO. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. December 22, 1892.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-SUFFICIENCY OF SPECIFICATIONS-DESCRIPTION. The first claim of letters patent No. 279,094, issued June 5, 1883, to Emile Kegreisz, covers an improved process of giving a variegated appearance to the ornamentation of enameled ironware, by recoating it with a colored liquid after it has been enameled in the usual way. In the specification the process is described as follows: "After the ordinary process of enameling has been completed, I prepare a thin glaze composed of any coloring matter that can be made to remain mechanically suspended a short time in water, and apply it to the article. *** The glaze should be made sufficiently thin to avoid being pasty, so that it will freely spread or run over the surface. * # The glaze will be found to separate and coagulate in irregular spots," etc. Held, that the patent is not invalid for insufficiency of description, in that it does not state that the enamel must * be coarse ground, so as to remain but a short time mechanically suspended; for one skilled in the art would know that the result could only be obtained by the use of coarse-ground enamel. 2. SAME-INVENTION. In view of the fact that Kegreisz was the first to perfect the art, and make it a commercial success, and that the goods are pleasing and ornamental, and have become popular with the public, it must be held that the discovery of the process involved the exercise of inventive faculty. 3. SAME-ANTICIPATION. Anticipation of the patent by the Vollrath process was not sufficiently shown, the evidence thereof being that of witnesses who attempted to describe a complicated process practiced by them 10 or 15 years ago, and who did not agree as to the composition of the enamel then used, or the object they had in view; and it appearing that the results produced by that process were crude and ungainly, and that Vollrath himself, in his 1881 patent, stated that the mottled appearance was due to an oxidation of the metal surface during the operation of drying, (a process entirely foreign to that of the patent,) and it also appearing that he is himself a licensee under the patent,-a position wholly inconsistent with the theory that he was the first inventor. 4. SAME-INFRINGEMENT. The claim is infringed by one who employs the same process, although he adds thereto another step, namely, that of shaking the article after it has been dipped in the glaze, in order to hasten the process of accumulating the particles to produce the mottled appearance, since this kind of manipulation was well known in the art of enameling. In Equity. On final hearing. Bill by the Lalance & Grosjean Manufacturing Company against the Habermann Manufacturing Company for infringement of a patent. Decree for complainant. Arthur v. Briesen, for complainant. ware. COXE, District Judge. The complainant sues for the infringement of letters patent No. 279,094, granted to Emile Kegreisz, June 5, 1883, for an improvement in the ornamentation of enameled ironThe invention consists in an improved method of giving a variegated appearance to the ware, by recoating it with a colored liquid after it has been enameled by the usual method. By this process imperfections are concealed, and an irregularly mottled, wavy appearance is imparted to the article recoated, which enhances its beauty and value. The specification describes the process as follows: "After the ordinary process of enameling has been completed, I prepare a thin glaze, composed of any coloring matter that can be made to remain mechanically suspended a short time in water, and apply it to the article, preferably either by immersing the latter in a tank containing said glaze, or by pouring the glaze upon the article. The glaze should be made sufficiently thin to avoid being pasty, so that it will freely spread or run over the surface. After the article has been submitted to the second bath of thin glaze, the latter will be found to separate and coagulate in irregular spots upon the smooth surface formed by the first coating of glaze. * After the application of the glaze, the article is placed in a drying oven heated to a temperature of about 130° Fahrenheit, and is kept there until the glaze is approximately dry, when it is removed to the oven or muffle employed in the well-known enameling processes, where it is a second time fired, as in the usual process of enameling." The claims are: "(1) The hereinbefore described process of enameling and ornamenting metal ware, which consists in first covering the body of the article with a glaze of any suitable plain color, firing the same, then applying to the surface an additional coating or partial coating of glaze, of a different color from the first, the glaze constituting the second coating or partial coating being of such a consistency as to coagulate in irregular spots upon the surface, and again firing, as set forth. (2) As a new article of manufacture, an enameled vessel presenting a mottled or variegated surface of two or more colors, produced by the coagulation in irregular spots of one or more of the coatings of glaze, substantially as set forth." The principal defenses are, insufficiency of the specification, anticipation, want of invention and noninfringement. The proof shows that in order to produce the mottled appearance referred to the enamel must be ground coarse, and the defendant argues that the specification is defective because it omits all reference to coarse grinding. The argument in this regard is admirably summarized in the defendant's brief as follows: "The patent says that all that is necessary is a thin glaze. There is no suggestion that it is to be ground in any different way from ordinary glaze. Ordinary glaze is ground fine. Any person reading the patent, and finding that nothing was said in the patent to the effect that the glaze should be ground differently from ordinary glaze would naturally grind the glaze finc. If he did so it is admitted that he could not carry out the process of the patent in suit. He would be left to find out by experiment what else was necessary. He might discover that coarse grinding was necessary and he might not." ers. The paragraph of the specification which is pointed out as partie 1larly imparting the desired information is this: "I prepare a thin glaze composed of any coloring matter that can be made to remain mechanically suspended a short time in water." That this statement is not as perspicuous as it might be may as well be admitted. Undoubtedly Irving or Hawthorne could have done better. But the description is not addressed to rhetoricians or lawyers, but to enamelI am inclined to think that a competent enameler, reading the language quoted in the light of the avowed purpose of the patentee to produce irregular spots upon the smooth surface formed by a coating of enamel applied in the ordinary way, would have little difficulty in finding the patented process. He would know, first, that the second glaze must differ from the first glaze; second, that it must be capable of separating and coagulating in irregular spots; third, that it must be thin, and, fourth, that the coloring matter must remain mechanically suspended a short time in water. When to the information of the patent he added the information of his vocationthat fine ground enamel remains suspended a long time in water and that coarse ground enamel remains a short time only-it would naturally occur to him that a glaze that would coagulate, that was thin, that contained coloring matter which would remain suspended a short time, must be made with coarse-ground enamel. If the specification had declared that the enamel was to remain suspended "only a short time," the description would have been sufficient. This is hardly denied. One familiar with the art would, it is thought, have no difficulty in supplying the missing word. The sentence so constructed obviously expresses the meaning of the patentee. It is argued by the defendant that the true construction should be: "I |