24 FEDERAL REPORTER.
diamond might be placed upon cord; also that two strands might be
twisted to keep the diamond barb in place. Then follows the patent
to Mr. Glidden. Mr. Glidden’s application was dated in October,
. 1873, and the patent issued thereon in November, 1874. This patent
was for this form of fence wire, [referring also to model,] which is the
form of barbed wire now in common use. Intermediate the applica-
tion and patent, in the spring of 1874, Mr. Glidden filed an applica-
tion for another_ patent, covering this form of fence wire, [referring to
model,] in which he suggested the placing of slotted tubes between
the two lateral wires, extending them thus, [pointing to model,] giv-
ing, as he thought, greater firmness to the fence. Upon this applica-
tion he received a patent also, in the spring of 1874. In his appli-
cation of October, 1873, Mr. Glidden names a twisted fence wire,-—-a
transverse wire coiled about one of the strands of lateral wire, with
its twoiends projecting in opposite directions and perpendicular to
the fence wire; the other lateral wire serving to keep the barbs in
i position, and preventing lateral as well as vibratory motion. _ It is, of
course, obvious that all of the elements that enter into this Glidden
barbed wire were not new with him. The idea of protecting a
smooth wire with some kind of a barb to prevent cattle from rubbing
against and breaking a fence down, appears in the first patent issued.
Then, in Kelly’s patent, was the twisting of the two wires; but the coil
of the transverse wire between its ends, for the purpose of forming the
barb, was, so far at least as its application to fencing purposes, first
expressed in the application of Mr. Glidden. [
It is true that this coiling of the wire is by itself considered nothing
new, it having been of frequent use,—as, for instance, in the springs of
door-locks; and it is also claimed by the defendants that it is noth-
ing but the mere equivalent of the diamond barb of Kelly. But the
use of such a coil for the purpose of a barb upon fence wire, and its
combination with the other elements in this present structure, was
new with Glidden. It is also true that the entire combination--this
Glidden barbed fence wire—is a very simple thing, and it looks as
though it was going a good ways to give to such a simple structure
the rights and protection of a patent; but, simple, though it is, Mr.
Glidden first introduced it to the world, and if it has been found of
value in the uses of the world, it would also, on the other hand, seem
as though he should be entitled to the benefit of the value of that
which he has thus contributed.
I am much impressed by the language of Judge Bnoncmr in thc
case tried before him in Chicago, between these same plaintiffs and
Jacob Haish, that it is very dificult to draw the line between mani-
festations of mere mechanical skill and those of invention; yet
that this is an invention, and while coming very near to such border
line, it is still on the side of patentability. It is true, when we take
this structure to pieces, and examine its separate elements, as counsel
have in their arguments, it has been, to my mind at least, very diffi-