`46 * .FmDERAL· Rmrourmu. **
Umon Enom SETTER Co. v. Kam:. SAME v. Cumumcs and others.
SAME v. Paorrrv and others. __
(Owhwuit (Jowrt, D. Massachusetts. June 6, 1887.`
"Pnmwrs ron INVENTIONB—NOVELTY—SOLE Bunmsumns.
Letters patent No. 173,284, to Helms, for an improvement in machines for
burnishiug sole edges, consisting of a combination of the burnishing tool,
rest for the face of the sole, and iingerrrest, considered. and held void for
want·of novelty; the burnishing tool, with a guard, or. as Helms calls it, “rest
for the face of the so1e,”‘being old, and a hngergrest being described in the
_ _ prior patent to B. J. Tayman, of March 11, 18 3.
In Equity. .. .
J. E. ‘May·nad·1k:r, for complainants.  
R W. Porter and Geo. L. Roberts, for Keith and Prouty.
A John L. S. Roberts, for Cummings.
Com, J. The question of the patentability of the first claim of
Helms’ patent, No. 173,284, has been fully argued in the rehearing
granted in the suit against Keith. The claim is for the combination of
the burnishing tool, rest for the face of the sole, and finger-rest, in a
machine for burnishing sole edges. It is not denied that the burnishing
tool, with a guard, or, as Helms cells it, "rest for the face of the sole,"
1 is old, and a iinger—rest is also found described in a prior patent granted
. to B. J.~;Tayman, March 11, 1873. The defendants contend that the
Hrst claim of the He1ms_patent is for a combination of old elements, each
element having substantially the same function as in prior devices, and
that no newresult is produced, and that, therefore, the combination is
not patentable under well-settledvrules of law. , While the argument of
V the plaintiff is ingenious, Ido not think this position of the defendants
has been successfully met. ` ` _
p The main ground on which the plaintiff seeks to sustain the patent
V is that Helms, by means of the guard and finger-rest, is able to present
~ a shoe to _a. reciprocating tool, and that this is a very different thing from H
' pfesenting a shoe to a rotary cutter or burnisher; in other words, that
elms was the tirst to solve_the difficulty of how to present a shoe to a.
reciprocating rubbing tool,and that this required invention. But the
practical question is, whatimeans does_.He1ms employ for this purpose,
and are those means old and well known? Now,_we find reciprocating
tools for burnishing sole edges to be old. ` We iind the Helms burnish-
ing tool, with a guard, to be as old asthe old hand tool; and we find
‘ the finger-rest clearly set out in the Tayman patent, and other forms of
rests are referred to in prior patents. To employ an old hand tool on a.
reciprocating machine, in connection with a Tayman finger-rest, to ac-
complish an old result, is not a patentable combination. That the Tay-. "
man finger-rest is found on a rotary cutter or burnisher, and that rotary
cutters can be used without the finger-rest, does not do away with the
fapt that we find described in the Tayman patent a finger-rest, and that,