rrroiyrrson v. cinnnasraavia. 43.
after a careful consideration of the testimony, that it is not against the
evidence, and should be undisturbed. T
The foregoing views dispose of nearly all the other exceptions, which
are based upon alleged errors of the master in deciding disputed ques-
tions of fact. If "fiber white" was talc, the proof is surliciently clear
that the defendant’s white checks contained shellac and talc, in substan-
tially equal parts. The evidence adduced to establish the identity of the
checks analyzed by Prof. Chandler with those manufactured by the de-
fendant was- sufficient to sustain the master’s action in that regard, and
the same is true of the testimony upon the question of competition and
the ability of the complainant to supply the market. It is thought that
the rule enunciated in the carpet design cases (Dobson. v. Dormm, 118 U.
S. 10, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 946; Dobson v. Oarpct C'0., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 945) has little application to the ease at bar. Those decisions .
proceeded upon the theory that, as there was no evidence to establish the
value imparted to the carpet by the design, it waserror to attribute to
_ the patent the entire profit made upon the sale of the carpets. When,
however, the invention relates to a new composition of matter, and the
infringing article is made of the patented material, and this alone, the
measure of the ,patentee’s damages may be the entire profit which he
would have made. There is no room for segregation. It is not at all
like a patented..improvem_ent upon an existing: machine, for there it is
entirely clear that evidence must be given to show what portion of the
protits is due to the patented feature. Where the patent covers the in-
fringing article in its entirety, no such evidence can be given. There
can be nothing in the proposition that because the- defendant’s checks
were of a lower grade than the cornplainanfs the master’s computation
is erroneous, for the reason, amongothers, that they were so nearly alike
inappearance as to deceive buyers not only, but experts in the trade. `
Theevidence has been examined with care, andno, error which would
warrant the court in refusing, to confirm the report. has been discovered.
In many respects tho report is amost conservative one. The exceptions
are overruled, and the report of the master is confirmed. ·
· n. THOMPSON et al. v. GILDERSLEEVE. U
n (Circuit Court, S. D. New Ybrk. February 27, 1888.) i
1. Pnrnms ron II§VENTIOIiS—INFBING·EMENT·—MACHINEE ron Fonmne Surna-
‘ Bmms rn Laivrnsm. · : ~
». The third claim of letters patent No._ 136.340, issued February 25,1873, to
Samuel W. Sliorey, for an improvement in machines for forming staple-seams
in leather. which consists ofan inclined and retreating bar or anvil, in co‘m·
V bination with a. bendenfoot and a driving-bar, theirnprovement. being that
the inclinedend of the anvil. retreating under thepvire staple. supports it as
it is being driven into the leather, and sovobviates the necessity of b ring
holes for it in advance, is infringed by a device for stapling tog ther the sheets
. ofbooks andpamphlets, in which the staple, while being driv.en·.in,.is sup:.