42 FEDERAL Rnronrma.
A T i l A V Goon v. BAILEY and others. V
i V l_4` ldircuit Oourl,   D. Pennsylvania. November 9, 1887.)
Purnirirs ° iron Iiwnisrrons - Inrnmenmmur —- Bax-Dmwme MscmNns—- Im-
rnovriunivr. -V V ~·V· 2
, Letterspatent No. 95,462 were issued October 5, 1869, to Good, for an im-
provement in i1ax·drawing machines. Both sets of gill-pins are carried by end-
less chains; but, as etated in his application for a patent for an improvement
in 1885, the working pins of one be t cannot be brought very close to those of
the other, and, on account of thi  break of very considerab e length between
the workingportions of the two belts, the machine, while it works well for
, a long fiber, oes not work` as well for a shorter one. The slowermoving
series of pins of the Bailey & Lewis machine are operated by screws, and are
broughtinto and carried out ofactionby means of. cams upon the screw-rods,
whi raise or lower their carrying bars; and the gill-pins in the faster-moving
series are divided between an upper and a lower endless chain; the pins of
one chain —a1ternating»with;the ot er. These, with the other mechanical de-
vices connected therewith, admit of a much closer relation between the two
· “ se1·ies‘of‘bars and pins than is found in complainants machine, and as close
· as is desirable to have them. Held, that the iiference, though slight, is very
.· important, and is no infringement. v_ . i - , e .
  Bill for injunction. Q V . V ; ·   ,   V
. , Bill,,by.Good, complainant, against Bailey_ & Lewis, defendants, to
enjoin theinfringement of certain letters patent granted complainant -for ~
animprovement in jlax-drawing machines. _ V   · » ·
_ Gifford c'; Brojum and ,W.· A. Redding, for complainant., i
  LL Doolittle and Oraugford dc Dallas, for respondent. . .,,. ,
, Buttman,  . .1 Q The suit is brought for infringement of letters patent No.
95,462, granted October 5, ,1869, to Good, for an improvement in flax-
, drawing machines. The- validity ofthe patent,Vand the alleged infringe-
ment, aredenied by the answer. i   . A · i ,_ »
4 As respects the nrst, little need be; said; The patent was granted
. nearly 20_ years ago. . The machine went into usesoon after, and has
continued to be employed throughout the country ever since. It was
valuable, and displaced machines previously used for the same purpose.
The validity of the patent has never been questioned save in this instance.
Such acquiescence. is extraordinary, and of itself is entitled to much
weight in considering the question now raised. .,We have found nothing
iu.the,rec0rd, to justify an adverse decision; nothing sutlicient to over-
come the presumptions arising from the patent, and the acquiescence re- V
ferred to. The history of the art, and the record of the complainant’s
application and proceedings, thereon, however, forbid ia liberal construc-
tion of the claim. All the elements employed in forming the combina-
tion are old. The combination alone is new, and this differs so slightly
from that of machines previously manufactured or described that the
claim for it can only be sustained in connection with the special mechan-
ical dcvices employed in forming it. VVe do not mean to say, or suggest,
that its operation may be avoided by the mere substitution of known
equivalents; but we think it may by the employment, instead, of other