HOFF v. 1RoN-CLAD MANUF’G 00. I 45
I . i A Hors and another v. IRON-CLAD MANUF,G C0. ·
(Uircuit Court. S. D. New York. April 27, 1887.)
PATENTS ron Invmznous-Inr·nmonmaNr—CoAn-Hons.
The first claim of letters patent granted June 19, 1883, to Charles Ho!. for
“the method of forming the body of a coal-hod, or other similar vessel, which
{ consists, substantially as before set forth, in Hrst forming ,a cone-shaped body
from a suitable blank, then folding in the cone-end of said body in crimps to ’
form the bottom, " if not void for want of novelty, having been anticipated
by the letters patent of Great Britain, N0. 3,578, of November 3, 1873, granted
to Haseltine, must be limited to a method consisting among other things in
folding in the cone·end of the body to form the bottom of the vessels in a
series of annular ribs or rings; and upon this construction of it the defendant
does not infringe in forming a part of its coal-hod bottoms by folding in the
sides and then closingt the space between the ends with a cap; mo ifying,
on rehearing, 27 Fed. ep. 307. ·
In Equity. On rehearing. For original opinion see 27 Fed. Rep.
307. , .
4 After the original decision, _the defendant obtained leave to amend its
‘ answer and an order for a rehearing on the ground of newly-discovered
evidence, which consisted chiefly of the letters patent of Great_Britain,
No. 3,578, of November 3, 1873. · A A
engage J. Murray and A. rv. Brriesen, for complainants. “ _
  (L “Webb and Frederik H. Betts, for defendant. I I
Wanmcm, J. _ In view of the English patent to Haseltine of Novem-
ber 3, 1873, which has been introduced by the defendant, since it was
permitted to amend its answer and have a rehearing of the cause, the
first claim of the complainantsi patent, if not void 'for want of novelty,
can only be sustained by limitingit to one in which the method consists
among other things in folding in the cone-end of the body to form the
bottom of the vessel in a series of annular ribs or rings. It is doubtful
whether the claim is capable of this interpretation. If it is not, the
Haseltine patent anticipates it, because that patent clearly describes the _
method as applied to cylindrical vessels made of any suitable niaterial.
The method is the same whether applied to a cylindrically shaped body
or a tapering or cone-shaped body. Without deciding that novelty is
negatived, it sufhces that upon the narrowed construction which `it must
receive in order to save it, the defendant does not infringe.
’lne bill is dismissed, with costs. _