tion solely for the protection of the keeper, and had nothing to do with locking or unlocking the doors, and that the mechanical de vices adopted to produce that result acted precisely the same without the grating as with it. In other words, the court held that there was no patentable combination between the grating and the devices. Neither of those decisions is a precedent for the case under consideration. There was nothing upon the face of the plaintiff's patent to show that it was invalid. The questions of the novelty and utility of the plaintiff's invention were not questions of law to be determined by the court, but were issues of fact to be sub mitted to the jury. It cannot be said that there was no evidence to support the verdict. The plaintiff's invention, if any there was, consisted in shortening or dispensing with the wheel shaft, which, in combination with adjustable screws, had, before his invention, extended from one standard of the machine to the other. He thus brought the adjustable supports of the wheel nearer together, dispensing with a considerable amount of material, which could only add to the weight, the friction, and the cost, and bringing the point of application of the treadle bar to a central position between the two points of support of the wheel, thereby increasing the ease of operation of the machine. It may be conceded that the plaintiff's combination approaches very closely the line which separates that which is patentable from that which is not, and that the amount of invention involved in it is small. The patent, however, was prima facie evidence of its own validity, and the burden of proof was upon the defendant to establish its want of novelty. Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 690, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 970; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486; Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U. S. 94. There was evidence that the plaintiff's machine was used to a very considerable extent by manufacturers; that the plaintiff sold numerous shop rights for its use; and that he manufactured and sold a number of his wheels with their adjustable bearings. There were witnesses who testified to the novelty and the utility of his invention. There is testimony that the wheels in use prior to his invention were unsatisfactory; that they were difficult to operate, and were noisy in operation: and that a considerable amount of attention was bestowed upon the question of their improvement during a period of several years antedating his patent. All these facts may be taken into consideration in a doubtful case. Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 164, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825; Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 591; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 495. There was evidence, also, of infringement by the defendant, and that question was properly submitted to the jury under correct instructions from the court. The patent under which the defendant was manufacturing wheels when the action was commenced was issued February 17, 1880. It is a patent for "an improvement in bandwheel bearings for sewing machines." The specifications show that the results sought to be accomplished thereunder were substantially the same that are arrived at in the plaintiff's patent, namely, "to do away with the rattling of the band wheel, and to reduce the friction: also to simplify and condense the parts, lessening the cost, and avoiding the complications of the antirattling journals in use." It is claimed that the combination used in the defendant's patent differs essentially from that covered by the plaintiff's patent in several distinct particulars: First, that the defendant dispenses with the bracket; second, that it dispenses with the arm, "E," which is attached to plaintiff's wheel, and made a part of his combination; third, that, instead of two adjustable screws, the defendant uses but one, and in the machines manufactured under its patent prior to 1886 it used no adjustable screw whatever. The plaintiff's pat ent being a patent for a combination of old devices, the question of the infringement depended upon whether or not the changes from that combination adopted in defendant's wheel were merely changes in form, or such as arose from the substitution of equivalents. The defendant had the right to make improvements upon the plaintiff's combination, and defendant's patent cannot be held to be an infringement if it presents a new combination of the elements that are found in plaintiff's patent, or substitutes for one or more of the same a new ingredient, performing a new function. But the changes adopted in the defendant's device were evidently found by the jury to be merely formal. The jury must have found that by substi tuting one screw or an adjustable slide or lug for the two adjustable screws of plaintiff's patent the defendant accomplished all the results of that feature of plaintiff's combination by an equivalent device, and that the deflection of the defendant's axle to form the crank is but a change in form from the plaintiff's arm, "E," which is attached to the side of the wheel, and that the defendant's brace brings the point of support of the wheel to the same relative position it would occupy if the plaintiff's bracket were used. There was evidence before the jury to sustain this view. There was testimony to the effect that all of the devices employed by the defendant were the same as plaintiff's device, with the exception of slight changes in form, which performed no new functions, and which accomplished all the results attained by the plaintiff, with no improvement in operation, and no perceptible advantage in construction or cost; and that it was wholly immaterial whether there were two adjustable screws, or one adjustable screw, or an adjustable lug, whether the treadle were attached to an arm affixed to the wheel out of its center, or to an axle passing through the center, and deflected away therefrom, to form the treadle crank, or whether the support were a brace or a bracket. In short, the jury must have found that the improvement or invention of plaintiff, if any there was, consisted, in its essential features, in combining the advantage of adjustable screws, whereby friction and noise were lessened, and opportunity was afforded to adjust and take up lost motion, together with an axle so shortened as to leave only length for support upon both sides of the wheel, and room between for the central and even operation of the treadle crank, and that these are likewise the essential features of the defendant's wheel. There being no error in the rulings or charge of the court, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs to the defendant in error. NATIONAL SHEET-METAL ROOFING CO. v. SMEETON. No. 41. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NOVELTY-METAL ROOFING PLATES. The second claim of letters patent No. 256,083, issued April 4, 1882, to John Walter, for "a sheet-metal roofing plate having one of its lateral edges formed with two parallel corrugations to form a gutter, and the other lateral edge formed with a broad corrugation, adapted to make a seam with corrugations and the cap for the gutter of a corresponding plate," is void for want of novelty, since gutters in rigid roofing plates were previously known. 47 Fed. Rep. 307, affirmed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. In Equity. Suit by the National Sheet-Metal Roofing Company against Henry Smeeton to restrain the alleged infringement of a patent. The bill was dismissed at the hearing. Complainant appeals. Affirmed. Hill & Dixon, for appellant. Banning, Banning & Payson, for appellee. Before GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in 47 Fed. Rep. 307. LEIB v. ELECTRIC MERCHANDISE CO. et al.1 (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. February 11, 1893.) No. 56. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NOVELTY-ELECTRIC RAIL-CONNECTOR. Letters patent No. 434,087, issued August 12, 1890, to Charles Leib, for an electric rail connector consisting of a short metallic wire with each end passing through a bolt or rivet, which is firmly inserted into a hole drilled into the rail, are void for want of novelty over the Gassett & Fisher patent of May, 1880, in which the connecting wire is coiled round the heads of the rivets, instead of passing through them, as well as the Westinghouse patent of July 31, 1883, and the Winter patent of April 14, 1885, in which the ends of the wires are directly inserted in holes in the rails. 48 Fed. Rep. 722, affirmed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Suit by Charles Leib against the Electric Merchandise Company and others for alleged infringement of a patent. The bill was dismissed at the hearing. Complainant appeals. Affirmed. Banning, Banning & Payson, for appellant. F. W. Parker, for appellees. 'Reported by Louis Boisot, Jr., Esq., of the Chicago bar. v.54 F.no.2-25 Before GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, Dis trict Judge. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in 48 Fed. Rep. 722. SERATED FUEL CO. v. WOODBURY GLASS CO. SAME v. COX & SONS CO. et al. SAME v. COHANSEY GLASS MANUF'G CO. (Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. January 31, 1893.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-COMBINATION-ANTICIPATION. Letters patent No. 397,336, issued February 5, 1889, to James H. Bullard, for an apparatus for burning hydrocarbon fuels, in which the oil-supply pipe and the air-supply pipe are capable of independent regulation so as to vary the character of the flame to meet the requirements of different kinds of work, were not anticipated by letters patent No. 365,789, granted to the same inventor, July 5, 1887, in which the oil and air supply were not capable of independent regulation; nor was there anything in the prior state of the art, including the earlier Bullard patent, to invalidate this combination, though all the particular elements entering into it were old. 2. SAME. The fact that the apparatus covered by the 1889 patent permits of the supply of oil and air to a great number of furnaces from one fuel tank, and a single air compressor governed by one regulator, is not to be left out of view in considering the validity of the patent because this feature is not referred to in the specifications, and may not originally have been per ceived by the inventor. Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 157, followed. In Equity. These were three suits brought by the Aerated Fuel Company against the Woodbury Glass Company, the Cox & Sons Company and others, and the Cohansey Glass Manufacturing Company, respectively, for infringement of a patent. Decrees in each case for complainant. Briesen & Knauth, for complainant. ACHESON, Circuit Judge. Each of these three suits is upon letters patent No. 397,336, to James H. Bullard, dated February 5, 1889. The patented invention, the specification represents, relates to an "apparatus for securing the burning of hydrocarbon fuels and the regulating thereof." The apparatus illustrated and described comprises a burner, which, as shown, is arranged within a glass furnace, two distinct pipes running to and connected with the burner,one an oil-supply pipe leading from a liquid-fuel receptacle; the other an air supply pipe leading from an air-compressing machine,— and a regulator for automatically controlling the compressor, and maintaining the compressed air as fed to the burner at a uniform pressure. The specification states: "A cock is provided both in the air and oil supply pipes, as seen at h and j respectively, whereby a normal or desirable proportional issue of air and oil to the burner is secured under their proper operations." The patent has a single claim, which is as follows: "An apparatus for securing and regulating the combustion of liquid fuel in glass-melting and analogous furnaces, consisting of a burner, a liquid-fuel tank, a pipe connecting said fuel tank and burner, an air compressor having a steam pipe for conveying steam thereto for driving the same, provided with a valve, a pipe connecting said air compressor and said burner, a regulator connected to and actuated by the pressure in said air pipe, and a connection between a movable part of said regulator and said steam valve, whereby the feeding of steam to said air compressor is regulated, and a consequent regulation of the air pressure to the burner is secured, substantially as and for the purpose described." There is here no contest as to infringement. It is conceded by the defendants' counsel, and must be under the uncontradicted proofs, that, if the patent is valid, the defendants, respectively, infringe the claim. As then, admittedly, the only question for the court is whether the plaintiff's patent is valid, we might perhaps avoid any reference to the construction to be given to the claim. But it may be well here to say that we do not accept the suggestion that the words, "whereby the feeding of steam to said air compressor is regulated, and a consequent regulation of the air pressure to the burner is secured," define the function of the entire combination. That reading would be too narrow. The quoted clause expresses the specific function of the particular constituent with which it stands immediately connected, while the opening words of the claim-"An apparatus for securing and regulating the combustion of liquid fuel in glass-melting and analogous furnaces" -indicate the purpose of the combination as a whole. The validity of the plaintiff's patent is denied upon the groundsFirst, that the entire combination claimed was anticipated by letters patent No. 365,789, granted to said Bullard on July 5, 1887; and, secondly, that in view of the previous state of the art, including what was shown in Bullard's earlier patent, no patentable invention is disclosed or claimed by the patent in suit. Now, the earlier Bullard patent cited is, indeed, for improvements in furnaces for burning hydrocarbon fuels, and certainly it does exhibit many of the constituents of the combination here in question, including an air compressor and an automatic regulator. But we cannot assent to the defendants' proposition that the two Bullard patents show, respectively, exactly the same combination of working parts. There are, we think, essential differences between the two devices in construction, operation, and results. In the 1887 apparatus the air pipe from the air compressor does not, as in the later construction, run to and connect with the burner, but leads to and communicates with an air space in the upper part of the liquid-fuel tank, and, by the air pressure thus applied, oil for the burner is forced into and through a tube which extends from near the bottom of the tank, up to and through an exterior tube secured to the top of the tank, while at the same time air is forced from the air space in the tank up through an annular air passage between said inner and exterior tubes. The latter tube is provided at its outer end with a screw cap having a small central perforation through which the mingled liquid fuel and air are ejected, in proportions regu |