450 - FEDERAL REPORTER. .
· ' Coxn, J. There is nothing in; these causes which distinguishes them
from Kittle v. De Graaf, 30 Fed.; Rep. 689. It is thought that the -1an-
guage there quoted from Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep.
‘ 217,*is suiiiciently comprehensive to include a case where the objection
disputing the jurisdiction of the court is taken at the earliest possible
moment. Although the point was in that case first presented upon ap-
· peal, the decision is clearly to theeifect that the trial cpurt may retain
T jurisdiction, if, at the time theibill is filed, theoomplainantmay obtain
j the equitable relief prayed for; · M a . ,
» The demurrers are overruled. The defendants may answer within 20
w days.
  ? · Konu v. Wmmisorr and others. T J ` ·` ·
(0a>rcuit_ Court, S. .D...Z\T4gq Fark, December 19,1887.) _ . ,
Pnrmnms Fon Invnnrrous-INr·1nrNenumN·r—-Pnnmaxim.
In an action for the infringement of a patent, the question of infringement
cannot be determined upon a plea., It is not the province of a plea to inter·
pose defenses which go to the merits, and relate in nowisc to matters in abate-
ment or in bar. Such defenses must be raised by answer.
' ‘PIeain‘Equity. * °   ' v'   " —   " ‘ ¥i
This is an action for the infringement of letters patent No. 247,766,
granted to the complainant October 4, 1881, for an improvement in
button-hole cutters. " The objects0f theinventor was··t0·oonstruct a pair
of button-hole scissors, with the screw-shaft and nut, which fix the def-
finiteiplay of the arms: of the scissors, located between the arms. · One
endpof the screw-shaft is nrrnly attached to one arm of the scissors; the
other end?fits into a funnel-shaped hole in the arm opposite, which gives
a support to that end of the shaft. ~’The claim is as follows: l Kr ~
"As an article of manufacture, a button-hole cutter, having the screw-shaft,
D, securely fastened to one arm of the cutter at one end, and the other end
restingin a conical recess in the other arm of the cutter,_*tbe nut, C, working
onthe shaft,·D, between the two arms, all. constructed and arranged, substan-
jtially as and forthe purpose described." y V _ V y i ., . ~-
  The application as first filed was rejected upon reference itotwo prior
patents, the examiner holding that thechange wa.s=a;‘fmere work-shop
,·expedient" not involving invention., . Thecomplainant then changed the
claim to its present form, and_forwarded"the amendment to the com-
missioner, with aletter in whicbfhe thus distinguishes his invention
yfrom theexaminerls references:- ,¤ .   . . ·»; l -· _
. "The construction in.applicant’s·case is different. One end of the screw-
‘ shaft is securely fastened to the inside 0f_ one arm, and the other end rests in
.a.conical_ recess in the other arm, and forms a. support for this end, and the
`nut works as this screw shaft, and forms the seat fixing the limit of the cbt
—of the cutter; and the entire length of the screw-shaft is betweenithe external
sides of the arms of the cutter, thus making the cutter more compact and less
cumbersome. " .- ‘ — i · ‘ ‘· i 2