48 _ FEDEEAI. REPORTER. ·
tray, conforms to the shape of the upper end of the bowl, and overlaps the
hange, B. The tray is provided at its outer edges with the vertical ltlanges,
E8. l The inclining of the upper surface from all sides gives the dishing form.
In the drawings, E? is a downward iiange around the central opening; and ,
E8 are upward flanges at the back sidesaud front. "
Here are all the elements of the claim of the patent in suit, with the
U addition of the flange in front, which is immaterial. That would have
nothing to do with the operation of the flanges at the back and sides.
The real diiference between, the tray of that patent and the safe of this
is that tray is made of porcelain or earthenware and this of cast-iron.
· What Demarest really invented beyond what was known before was
making these things of cast-iron, a well-known material, instead of mak-
ing th em of lead, or wood covered with lead, or of porcelain or other earth-
enware. It is shown and conceded that these cast—iron traysare good ar-
ticles, andhave largely superseded the others, and gone into general use,
since Demarest’s invention. These facts show utility, but do not of
themselves show patentable novelty. There must be something amount-
ing to invention apart from mere usefulness however great. Hollister v.
Benedwht Manuf’g Oo., 113 U. SQ 59, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717; Thompson v.
Boalsselrker, 114-*U. S. 1, 5 Sup: Ct;"·Rep*. 1042. The use of one old ma-
, r terial in plaée of another, wh<7=h`_,t1le, substituted material performed no
` new function and is an improvement because it is more durable, does
not appearto amount to patcntable invention. Hotchkrlss v. Greenwood,
11 How. 248j Hicks v. Kelsey, 18,Wal1.“'670; Gardner v. Herz, 118 U. S.
180, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1027. This is all that Demarest appears to have
done. The patent is therefore apparently void for want of any patenta-
ble invention to found it upon. ‘ ·
, Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of complaint with costs.
. )