‘ 88 rm>mmm·‘nmronrm.
zéveiy part of the device is rendered adjustable, so that it may be applied
to adress of any size or style,’and fill it out perfectly, inrorder that trim-
ming may be placed upon it." · Thefpatent describes both a waist form
and a skirt form. The present suit isconfined to ltheskirt form. The
skirt form shows a series of upright ribs corresponding in general outline
to theskirt of a lady’s dress, surroundings standard. The form is sus-
pended from the outer ends of several series of braces, the inner ends of
thebraces being provided with adjusting mechanism for adjusting them
up or ;dow»n on a central standard-, and thereby contract or expand the
entire form, or by adjusting one ormore sets of braces to contract or ex-
pand theform at different points; 1-The defendants are charged with in-
fringement of the secondclainr of the patent, which is as follows: "In
combination with the sta »dard=,¥a, and ribs, c, the double braces, e°, slid-
ing, blocks, ft, f“, and =rests,»h*, hzysubstantially as and' for the purpose
{set. forth;" This claim describes the hip portion of the skirt. In de-
fendauts’ form there is a standard like Hall’s, and surrounding ribs de-
signed to impart shape to a dressyand so arranged as to be adjusta-
ble through their entire length. In the upper orhip portion of the
form there are found the series of double or oppositely inclined braces,
such as are seen in the Hall patent. Claim 2 is made up of a combina-
‘ tion of H-ve elements, and it is apparent that defendants’ form has the
standard, the ribs or their equivalent, and the double bracesof the Hall
patent. The question of infringement turns upon whether the defend-
ants’ form contains the sliding blocks, fl, fz, and the rests, h‘, h“. In
place of the upper sliding block and rest the defendants have a collar,
which is fixed to the standard, and in place of the lower sliding block
and rest they have substituted a nut and threaded standard. The outer
ends of the braces are hinged to this fixed collar, instead of to a sliding
block, and the inner ends of the braces are hinged to the nut in place of
a sliding block. I am satisfied that these adjusting devices are substan-
V tially the equivalent of `each other. A nut and threaded standard for
adjusting the inner ends of hinged braces was a known equivalent for a
sliding block and rest. This is shown by the patent granted Charles
Franke, September 7, 1875. ·So the fixed collar in.defendants’ form
must be considered the equivalent of the Hall block and rest. Assum-
ing the upper rest in the Hall device to be provided with a thumb-screw,
so as to enable it to be adjusted vertically on the-standard, still, when
once it is fixed, it does not differ from the fixed collarof the defendants’
device. I regard this change made by the defendants as a formal one.
Confining ourselves strictly to the second claim of the patent, it seems
to me clear that the defendants’ device is an infringement of this claim.
There is nothing in the prior state’0f the art as exhibited in the record
which can be called an anticipation of the Hall patent, though- each of
the elements of the second claim, with the exceptiomperhaps, of the ribs,
is found to be old. I am of opinion that complainant is entitled to a
decree, and it is so ordered. Decree for complainant. A »