46 .· ·· mnmmie .aarom·m1z. - ;~:~
The inclined part, as asupporterof the crowu.0f’¤he staple, and retreat-
ing to give way to the crown as it is forced downward bythe driver, was
new.: The cam and lever, are necessary to draw the forming part of the
anvil backward until the crown of the staple isbrought to the top ofthe
incline; then the downward motion of the drivercn the crown will force
the inclined portion back while it is giving support;. The cam and lever
are not brought into the combination of this claim by its terms, neither
are theytnecessary to theioperation of, the inclined and retreating part
of the anvil; therefore they are not brought in by any necessary impli-
cation. Q This claim appears to be valid to coverjthis inclined and re-
treatinganvil, operating tosupport the crown of the staple in the man·
ner described, while the prongsare being supported by the bender-foot,
and the staple is being driven homeby, the driver; While these parts
work together imthis mannerthey are the combination of this claim;
and all the other parts of thezmachine that make, these parts operate in
this way to produce the result required are, for that purpose, equivalents
of the parts of any other machine; however diH`erent_they may be in
themselves, which al-so make these parts operate in the same way to pro-
duce the same result. Ulcmgh vt Barker, 106 U. S. 166, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep.
188,198.   · ‘ ··   ~ _1, _
—· In the defenda.nt’s machine, what is called in this patenttthe "anvil,”
~ isdivided, and the part over which the staple is formed is in one piece,
and therinelined part, which supperts the crown of the staple while be-
ing driven, is in another.. But the inclined and retreating portion opere
° ates to support the crown of the staple while the prongs are supported
`bythe bendenfoot and the, staple is being driven home by the driver,
1 precisely as these parts workdnjthe combination of this claim. The
forms are somewhat diiierent, but  operation and result are the same.
In this manner the defendant appears to make use of Shore y’s invention
as it was patented by. this Cl8jI1}·.~:vMd80% v. Graham, 23 Wall. 261;
Ives v. Ilamiltem, 92 U. St 426; ValueC0. v. Value C0., 113 U. S. 157, 5
Sup. Ct. B'ep..513.= . e. ,   . · __ t ; 1
Let there be a decree that the third claim of the patent is valid; that
the defendant infringes that claim; and for an injunction and an account,
withcosts. .·; t    l»‘ , - Q   ,
A J. ~·     , .rEMA¤k;”rr.KANEid   ,,~- ,· i .   )l—`
  A ·(Q;7r¤u1It;0purz, Mfp: Illinqis.   February 27,1888.) _   . ·l V .
i. Purmrrsi nouiiluvunncns-elfnankrsnrne Puacnséirns wrru Surrs ronln-
_`1mmos:ui¤rxrrT-Inauncirron. ’i `,` ‘ "‘ ` [_   `   = A [ “ , ’ ‘
` 1 ‘ A courvdfequity hasrjurisdictioh torestraiu. au attempted` intimidation by
~»;. one issuing circulars threatening tqbring suits for infringements against per-
`, sons dealing in aconipetitor s patergte particle, the bill charging, and the
_ prooi’s_show1ug,_ that the charges ofiu rmgemeut werenct made m good faith,
- V ut with malicious Intent to-miursrcomplarnaut s business. ;. , .