40 FEDERAL nmponrmn. _
a rail or platform base, as existed in Bean’s chair, tonguing and
grooving the rocker and the base, and elevating the latter at each end,
would seem to be no more than a mere mechanical change. In that
case all that is left would be simply the fact that an elastic vertical
band is attached to the two parts of the structure to prevent the
chair from being thrown off the platform ; and the elastic band is noth-
ing more than a mechanical device to accomplish the object named.
But in any view of the subject it seems clear that the patent, if it
could be sustained for the particular manner in which the chair is
constructed, namely: "The stand, A, having rails, B, the seat, c’, and
rockers, C, fitted to the said rail; and the elastic bands, M, combined
and arranged as specified;" then the chairs constructed by the de-
fendants do not come within the specific descriptions here contained,
and so would not infringe the plaintiffs patent. But we prefer to place
our opinion upon broader grounds, and to say that, fairly construing
the device here in question, as set forth in the specifications, there
was nothing in it that entitled Singer to a patent.
Dsmorf & B111N v. EAs·rw1cx.*
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 23, 1882.)
PATENT—PI{IORITY—EMI’LOYE. V
One who is the first discoverer of a process is entitled to a patent therefor,
even against one in whose employ he was at the time of the discovery, and at
whose request. and expense he was making experiments which led to the dis-
COVETY
Hearing on Bill, Answer, and Proofs.
This was a suit between parties who had respectively made appli-
· cation for a patent for the "manufacture of sulphate of alumina."
The commissioner decided in favor of the present respondent, where-
upon the complainant filed this bill. After the filing of the bill, let-
ters patent No. 239,089 were duly issued by the commissioner to the
respondent. The facts are suihciently set forth in the opinion.
F. T. Chambers and George Harding, for complainant.
Baldwin, Hollingsworth at Fraley, for respondent.
BUTLER, D. J. V In the year 1880 the complainants and respondent, `
` respectively, made application for letters patent for improvements in
*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.