rosnnn v. smou; 41
Theprincipal answer of the plaintiff to these patents is that the pro- f
cess of resweating the leaves is a very different process from that of curing
green tobacco, or renovating it as by Huse’s method, or treating stems
by Payn’s. Taking this to be so, the defendants resweat instead of cur-
ing the tobacco which they treat, and do not thereby infringe the process
of this patent for curing tobacco. The sweat-house of the defendants
does not, upon the evidence, appear to have either the metal-lined floor
of the orator’s patent of 1880, or any equivalent for it, nor the upright
cleats attached to the side-walls. If they have a slatted floor, it is no
more the slatted floor of the plaintili"s patent than the grated platform
of ¥Payn’s. They heat the tobacco in boxes in aclose room after it has
been moistened. r The Robinson patent of 1879 covers the boxes. They
do notappear to infringe anything left of the orator’s patent after iteis _
cubldown, as it must be h by these priorpatents. He appears to have
had greatsuccess in treating tobacco, but it seems tube due more to his
tskill and care in conductingthe processes than to his patented·.processes
or appa1·atus:·*   i · _   V .  
* Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs.;
‘,J   Roaman v. Smoiv and others.  
~ (Circuit Gourt, S; D. New York. May 17, 1887.) · A
1. _ Parmnrst ron Invnnrrons — Locxs ro Tnavanme tBses- Damaens road In- Q
rnmeaunztr. ‘ T · ‘ l ~ · · “ ¤
A decree was made restraining further infringement of a patent for certain
locks to-traveling bags,_and for an account of profits and damages. The
plaintiff, in proof of his damages, showed that he personally made and sold
_ the locks separately and`with bags, and that his (profit 'upon the locks was 91
cents er dozen, and that the defendants had sol a specific number of them,
but did not show their profits. Held, that the facts did not furnish a suihcient
basis for estimating the damages, and that nominal damages were therefore
only recoverable.
2. S.¤lMm—Pnor·rrs. _ , V _ ,
In proving damages for the infringement of a patent, which is merely an
incident attached to an article in common use, it mustlbe shown that the
pronts claimed were due to the patent itself, and could not have been made
except in exercise of the patent right; and, inproving such damages, a plain-
· tiff must show that he would have had an opportunity to make and sell the
patentedarticle which the defendants made and sold if they had not so made
i and sold it. _ V t
In Equity,. 4 . _
Arthur 12.. Briesen, forplaintid'. J. E. Ihndon Hyde, for defendants.
V WHEELER, Ll. Adecree for an injunction against further infringe-
ment of the plaintiff ’s patent, and for an account of pronts and damages,
` was before entered in this cause. 20 Fed. Rep. 197. It has nowbeen
heard on the plaintifi"s exceptions to the master’s report of nominal dam-
ages only. The patent is for a single feature of a lock for traveling bags.