1. Patents—Infringement of Combination Claims—Equivalents.

Infringement of combination claims can only be made out by showing that defendant’s machine has substantially every one of the elements composing the combination, or mechanical equivalents for any that are omitted; and “mechanical equivalents,” as used in this connection, means devices previously known, which, in the particular combination of the patent, can be adapted to perform the functions of those specified devices for which they are substituted without changing the inventor’s idea of means.

2. Same—Infringement—Can-Making Machines.

The Norton patent (No. 250,096) for a machine for soldering side seams of cans construed, as to claims 2 and 3, and the same held not infringed by a machine made according to the Jensen patent (No. 442,484).

8. Same.

The Leavitt patent (No. 250,266) for a can-body forming machine construed, as to claims 2 and 12, and the same held not infringed by the said Jensen machine.

4. Same—Limitation by Prior Art.

The Norton patent (No. 395,795) for a can forming and soldering machine construed, as to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10, and the same held to be limited by the prior state of the art to the specific devices shown; and, being so limited, held, further, that they are not infringed by the Jensen can-body making machine (patent No. 442,484).

5. Same.

The Hipperling patent (No. 366,482) for wiping surplus solder from the Inside of can bodies analyzed, as to claim 1, and held not infringed by the solder-wiping device of the Jensen machine.

6. Same.

The Leavitt patent (No. 444,000) for a can-body forming and side-seam soldering machine construed and limited, as to claims 20,.22, 23, 25, 20, 27, 28, 30, and 31, and the same hdd not infringed by the Jensen machine.