44 FEDERAL nsponrnn. ‘
chine was arecognized defect. This is so clearly stated by the complain-
ant himself in an application for another patent, intended to remedy the
defect, (granted in 1885,) that it is unnecessary to do more than repeat
. what he says:
" In such machines, [the complainant’s here involved,] the drawing or spread-
ing of the fibrous materials is performed by means of two or more endless
belts or aprons, furnished with combing or hacking pins, and arranged one
_ before the other, and running at different velocities; the operating points of
the pins on the two belts being in, or nearly in, the same plane, and all said
pins being presented in an upward direction during the time they are in oper-
ation. Such machines have proved very efficient in their operation to cause
the two belts of pins traveling at different velocities to thoroughly comb and »
straighten the hemp, Bax, or other materials during the travel of the fiber
through or over the frame or machines, and while the fibers are free at both
ends, but are subject to one objection, viz., that when the pin-carrying belts
are arranged so that both present their operating points upward, or in the
same direction, the working pins of ono belt cannot be brought very close to
, those of theother belt, and consequently a break of such considerable length
is left between the working portions of the two belts that, although the ma-
chine works well for a long fiber, it does not work as well for shorter fiber.
The object of my invention is to bring the working pins of one belt nearer to
those of the other, and thereby cause a closer nip of the fiber to be taken be-
tween the pins of the two Qbe1ts." `
The screws and connecting mechanical devices for operating ~the slower-
moving series of bars, employed by the respondent, produce a. machine
free from the defect referred to. The connection -of the two series seem
to be as close as it is prohtable to have them. The respondent has thus
accomplished, in a different way, precisely what was intended to be ef-
fected by the complainant’s subsequent patent. Does not this difference
between the machines constitute a substantial distinction, and relieve the
respondent from the charge of infringement? We believe it does. The
mechanical devices which effect a closer connection between the bars,
and consequently produce a better machine, cannot be regarded as mere
equivalents for the claimants because they do what the latter will not.
This may seem to be a slight difference; It is, however, a very impor-
tant one, and is quite as great, we think, as the difference between the
complainant’s machine and some of those which preceded it. We at-
tach no importance to the third over-riding series of pin-bars in the re-
spondent’s machine. In the absence of the distinguishing feature just
referred to, this would be regarded as an improvement, merely, added
to comp1ainant’s machine.
It would not be profitable to dwell longer on the subject. Sufficient
has been said to indicate the grounds on which the decision. rests. A
decree must be entered dismissing the bill, with costs.