32 FEDERAL REPORTER.
perhaps awkwardly, I express in this way: When Mr. Putnam be-
gan to construct his machine the problem was all stated before him.
The barbed wire had been constructed by hand-machines; the various
steps to the process were well known. He invented no new mechan-
ism, but, simply taking familiar mechanisms for doing the separate
parts of the work,he combined them in one machine. Thus he knew
that an intermittent motion must be given to the lateral wire, in or-
der that the barbs might be placed on it at regular intervals, and he
used a familiar mechanism for accomplishing such motion. In the
same way the transverse wire had to be moved intermittently across
the lateral wire, and he took a vibratory arm to accomplish this re-
sult; so with the other steps in the process. Of course, there was
invention in putting these various mechanisms together, and he should `
be protected in his invention; but he did not, as I said, himself state
the problem which he thus worked out. He stepped in after the dif-
ferent processes to be accomplished were known, after hand-machines
were in existence for performing these various processes, and thus, I
think_, occupies no such positio11 as the inventor of the telephone, who,
so to speak, both stated his problem and worked it out.
— Now, the Penny machine, which is also an automatic machine for
the manufacture of barbed wire, does its work by mechanisms, almost
every one of which is essentially different from those employed by
,M1·. Putnam. Instead of a vibratory arm to move the transverse
wire across the lateral wire, Mr. Penny has two wheels with segmental
faces, which, when in the revolution of the wheels the segmental
faces come together, clasp the transverse wire and push it forward
onto the late1·al wire, loosing their grasp of this transverse wire when
the contact of the segmental faces ceases; and a similar difference
exists as to almost all the other mechanisms of the two machines.
The difference between tl1e two machines is so marked,—and, indeed,
I understand that to be conceded by counsel,-that, unless Mr. Put-
nam is entitled to the position of a primary inventor, his machine is
not infringed by Mr. Penny’s. I have had the models of these ma-
chines in my office at Leavenworth, and I have invited mechanics
and others to examine the two and give me their views. That is not
exactly like submitting an equity case to a jury for the purpose of in-
forming the conscience of the chancellor, but, to one as little versed
in mechanics as I, it was, I think, helpful to get the views of others
more proncient in mechanics. Only two views have been expressed
to me by these various gentlemen. One was,——and a very common
expression,-"I know nothing about it and can tell nothing about it;"
while the other was that the differences between the two machines .
were as great as could be found in any machines constructed with
the intention of accomplishing the same result. So I think that the
claim of infringement in this case is not made out, and a decree will
be entered dismissing the bill.