r 44 ·rm>mu.r. nsronrmz.  
. · In.Equity.` » · ` l · i
- .Wdln1a·m; E. Gleason, for plaintiff. J V c “ '
·R. H. Parkinson, for defendants. _
'Wnnnmcn, J. This suit is brought upon patent N0. 282,275, dated
July 31, 1883, granted to the orator for a letter and invoice file for the
reception and classification of papers. The specifications of the patent
. describe a file having pockets formed of leaves and partitions connected
by gussets at the ends, with a piece of tape of linen or other suitable
materialpasted or otherwise applied to the gussets, and connected to the
sides of the {ile by having its ends fastened between the sides and out-
side covers. The object of the tape is set forth to be to strengthenthe
tape of the gussets, and give stiffnessto the parts to which it is attached,
and to connect the opposite sides of the file by a stronger and more du-
rable material than thegussetedvends of the pockets are required to be
e inade o£··* *There are five claims; the first, second, and fifth ofwhich are
for=the gulsseted bottoms and ends and partitions and Hap.` The third
isfor theQcombination· of l the tape called the "re-enforce~piece" with the
ends, partitions, and connecting pieces. The fourth is forthe combina-
tion of=the tapes attached to the gussets, and their ends held between the
sides and the outside covers, with thegusseted ends of the pockets. The
use of »the.re—enforce piece’·is` the only infringement complained of, and
applies only to the third and fourth claims. The case shows, and it is
conceded in argument, that all the rest of the structure of the file is older
than the plaintiff’s invention. This piece added no new part or function "
to what was known and in use before, but merely strengthened the parts
of the files in places where they were· weak and needed strengthening, to
which they were attached. Question is made as to whether the addition
of this piece for this purpose constituted a patentable invention. What
was needed in-the prior structuresswas merely to make them stronger
~ where they were shown by use to be too weak. The invention in this
patent strengthened them by obviousmeans in these weak places. Neither
, the discovery of anything new, nor the application of genius to the things
V known, nor anything beyond the skill of a good workman, appears to
p have been required or exercised in the accomplishment of this result.
Careful and repeated consideration of this subject, in view of the cases
which have been decided bearingzupon it, leads tothe conclusion that
the part of this patent claimed to be infringed does not cover any pat-
entable invention. Theinvention does not appear ·t0 be any greater than
that in Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S,. 180, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1027, which
was held not to be sufficient to support a patent. No reference to any
other decided case, or to any other point in this case, is deemed to be neo-
essary. Bill dismissed, with costs. ‘ ‘ _ »