1. Patents fob Inventions — Expert Evidence.

While the opinions of experts in patent cases are entitled to weight, as the judgment of persons skilled in the particular matter under investigation, yet they are not binding upon the court, and will be rejected if they do not appear reasonable and satisfactory.

2. Same — Construction of Patents.

It is the duty of courts to construe a patent by a reference to the language of its claims, and an examination of the specifications and drawings accompanying the same.

8. Same — Original Inventors — Infringement.

Original inventors have the right to treat as infringers all persons who make devices or machines operating on the same principle and performing tho same functions by analogous means, or equivalent combinations, even though the infringing machine may be an improvement of the original, and patentable as such.

4. Same. t

If the patentee’s ideas are found in the construction and arrangement of the subsequent device, no matter what may be its form, shape, or appearance, the parties making or using it are deemed appropriators of the patented invention, and are infringers. An infringement takes place whenever a party avails himself of the invention of the patentee, without such a variation as constitutes a new discovery.

5. Same — Combination Claim — Equivalents.

When a combination patent covers a new arrangement of old elements, producing a new and useful result, the same may he protected oy invoking the doctrine of equivalents, as against the substitution for any particular element of a different device known at the date of the patent as a means o£ performing similar work: and the fact that the substitute performs some additional functions does not prevent it from being an infringement.

3. Same — Infringement.

. There cannot be any infringement of a combination claim unless every element of the combination, or a mechanical equivalent of an omitted element, is used.

if. Patents for Inventions — Construction of Claims — Primary Invention — Can-Heading Machines.

Letters patent No. 367,014, issued November 7,18S3, to Edwin Norton, for a “machine for putting on the ends of fruit and other cans,” cover an invention of a primary character, and its claims are entitled to a broad and liberal construction; and the fact that a subsequent machine is an improvement thereon in some respects will not prevent infringement, if it operates on the same principle and performs the same functions by analogous means or equivalent combinations.

1. Same — Infringements—Differences of Construction.

Claim 1 of said patent claims, in a can-heading machine, “the combination of a device for sizing the exterior diameter of the can body to conform to the interior diameter of the can head, and holding the same so sized while the head is applied, said sizing and holding device having its end enlarged to fit the exterior diameter of the can head, so as to leave an annular space between it and the can body for the reception of the flange of the can head with a device for forcing the can head into said annular space, and thereby applying the can head outside the can body, substantially as specified. ’’ In the specifications the patentee says that he does not limit his invention to the particular mechanism employed, and "suggests variations involving the same principles. Held, that the claim is infringed by the “Jensen machine,” which is made under letters patent No. 376,804, and which, operates on the same principie, thóugh it is so arranged that only one end is capped at a time, the can head is delivered sidewise, and the can body endwise, to the mold, and the can body is moved towards the can head, while in the Norton patent both ends ar.e capped, the can head is delivered endwise, the can-body sidewise, and the can head is moved towards the can body.

Same — Combination Claim — Equivalents.

Claim 3 of the Norton patent covers a combination of the foregoing devices, with “a chute or device for delivering the can bodies to the machine, ” and “a chute or device for delivering the can heads to the machine. ” In these chutes the parts are delivered by force of gravity. Held, that these elements were infringed by the Jensen machine, though the parts did not deliver themselves, but were moved along by a traveling belt and a reciprocating feeder, since these, being well-known devices, served merely as substitutes or equivalents of the chutes.

;.0. Same.

In letters patent No. 274,363, issued March 20,1883, to Norton & Hodgson, claim 6 covers “the combination of the can body, clamping device or mold, with a chute for the can heads, a reciprocating head or piston at the'base of said chute for automatically feeding the can heads to the mouth of the mold, and applying the same to the can body, and a spring pin or device for holding the can head in position at the mouth of the mold.” Held, that this claim was infringed by the Jensen machine, there being evidence showing that the spring-pin device, sometimes used therein, operated in substantially the same way to hold the can head in position at the mouth of the mold, and was combined with the mold, piston, and can-head chute.

M. Same.

Claim 7 of the same patent covers “the combination of the delivery chute wheel having half molds upon its periphery, reeipi’ocating half mold, chute for the can heads, piston for applying the same to the can bodies, and discharging chute, substantially as specified. ” Held, that this claim is infringed by the Jensen machine, since the evidence shows that the reciprocating and revolving bar and fingers of the latter are merely an equivalent of the can-body feeding wheel, and that in both machines there is a reciprocating half mold mounted on the frame of the machine.

13. Same — Extent of Claim.

Letters patent No. 294.065, issued February 26,1834, to Norton & Hodgson, is for an improvement on the can-heading machine, as before described, and in claim 14 covers a combination therewith of “mechanism for heading and compressing into a .seam the flanges uniting ttia can head and body, substantially as specified.” Held that, as this patent shows the first combined can-heading and crimping machine, the claim is entitled to a liberal construction, and is therefore infringed by the Jensen machine, although the latter employs a rotary crimper, while the former use a squeezing jaw crimper, both being well-known devices.

13. Same.

Letters patent No. 322,060, issued July 14,1885, to Edmund Jordan, which covers an improvement on the original Norton machine, consisting mainly in the method of mounting tne mold, and of delivering the cans and can heads to it, is also infringed by the Jensen machine.

14. Same — Invention—Successful Machine.

Letters patent No. 807,197, issued October 2S, 1884, to Edmund Jordan, for a can-heading machine, having “a segmental damp-chuck, ”is not ini ringed by the Jensen machine, which has many features of likeness, as the evidence shows that the Jordan machine is too slow and”cumbersome in its operation to be a practical machine for heading cans of the size required for putting up fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, etc., and that the Jensen machine will do such work successfully and at reasonable cost. Hawley, District Judge, dissenting.

15. Same.

Letters patent No 307,491, issued November 4, 1884, to Norton & Hodgson, covers substantially the same machine as that described in patent 274,868, to the same inventors, with the additional feature that it is so arranged as to hold the can at an incline instead of horizontally, so as to operate upon filled cans. Held, that this arrangement, and the necessary adjustment, of the feeding devices, scarcely involved inventive genius; and, it appearing that the machine is only partially successful, while the Jensen machine, in operating on filled cans, is completely successful, there is no infringement. Hawley, District Judge, dissenting.