THOMPSON v. err.nnnsL1m=:vE. 45
erated upon without having holes previously made for them. The in-
cline is moved away by the action of the driver forcing the crown of the
staple downit, against a spring, in a direction opposite to that in which
the anvil is moved, andis brought back to its place for the next opera-
tion by the action of the spring. The defendant uses his machine wholly
on paper for stapling together the sheets of books and pamphlets. —
One point madein behalf of the defendant is that his machine is used
in forming staple-seams in paper, and not in leather. The machine of
the patent unites the leather by driving successive staples through the
parts to be united, twisting together the prongs on the other side of the
work, and forming thereby a continuous seam. The machine of the de-
fendant does the same with sheets_of paper. Either machine will oper-
ate upon either kind of material, in the same manner, as upon the other.
The material is operated upon, and the kind of it has no eifect upon the
mode. The patent covers the exclusive right to the use of that part of
the machine patented without restriction, and as much for new purposes
as for old. Roberts v. Ryer;91 U. S. 150. . ~
` Another point is that grooves inthe bender-foot are necessary to Sup;
port the prongs of the staple, and prevent them from crippling while be-
ing driven; that such grooves are not described in the patent, and are _
employed for that purpose ·in the defendants machine, making a differ-
ent machine from the patented one. These grooves were, however, well
known, and in use as parts of a bender-foot for this purpose atithe time
of the patent. This claim is forthe inclined and retreating anvil, in
combination with the bender-foot and driver, and not for the bender-foot
or driver. These grooves are no part of the anvil, and have no share in
supporting the crown of the staple while it is being driven. It was not
necessary to describe them in describing the operation of the anvil, for
the purposes of this claim, any more than it would be to describe any
other parts of this intricate machine, and their operation. The new
part was to be described; those parts which were old and well known
would be understood without description. Loom Co. v. Higgins,. 105
U. S. 580. * ? » r
Another point is that thecam and lever for withdrawing. the anvil are
taken by the specification into the combination of this claim,. and; that.;
as the defendant does not make use of such a cam and lever, he does not
use that combination. Many cases are referred to which show that a
patent covers only what is described in the claims, and that, when a
claim is for a combination, whatever is madea part of the combinat,3 mn,
by the words of the clairrfitself, oriby necessary inference, is a material
part in the construction of the patent. Bridge Co. v. Iron Oo., 95 U. S.
274; Fay v. Cordesmom, 109 U. S. 408, 3 ‘Su’p·. Ct. Rep.236; White v.
Qunbar, 119   S. 47, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Hartshorn v. Barrel Co.,
119 U. SLV664, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Snow v. Railway C’o‘.`,_12_1-’ UT Sr.
617 , 7 Sup..Ct. Rep. 1343. There can be noquestion about this., "The
only question on this part of this case is whether it comes within the
gprinciplesof those and other similar cases. . Thejanvil, asa former of
the staple, and retreating after. itis formed, out ofthe way, was not new.