TOOHBT V. HARDING. iti) �tially and materially different from the machines described in complainant's patent, andnot an infringement thereof. �Dpon an inspection of complainant's patent it appears that what she claims as her invention is the combination, in a plaiting board, of rods provided with heads, with a removable strip, by means of which ail the rods can be withdrawn at once without loss of time, or disturbing the plaits, by simply de- taching the strip. Her claim is confined to this. �The respondent elaims, as his invention, a plaiting board made in sections, detachable one from the other, provided on the under aide with dovetail grooves, to receive dovetail bars let into the main portion of the board; the purpose being to f urnish a plaiting board capable of being easily made wider or narrower by adding strips, as might be needed, for goods of varions vridths. �He also claimed a peculiar method of fastening and un- fastening the pins different from the complainant's method, the pins being the ordinary kuitting needles, and without heads. �The testimony and exhibita satisfactorily show that each patentee is manufacturing in accordance with his and her own patent, and there does net appear to be any infringement, unless the patent of respondent, whose application was filed two days later than complainant's, is an interference with the patent granted to the complainant ; that is to say," unless the invention claimed by the respondent is the same in whole or in part as that claimed by the complainant. �In considering this question it is to be noticed that no such interference is asserted by the complainant. She does not assail his patent and ask to bave it, or any part of it, an- nulled, but her complaint is that respondent, notwithstanding the patent granted to him does not contain the peculiar invention of her patent, has incorporated her invention into the machines which, under color of his patent, he is manu- facturing. �The rule of construction is that each patentee is restricted to the matters set out in his claim. The elaim of the com- plainant is for rods with heads, in combination with a remova- ��� �
