610 PEDEKAIj bepobteb. �QuiBOLo ». Abdito and another. �{Pireuit Court, S. D. N&a York. January 20, 1880.) �Patent — Wakt of Novbltt — Bvuu Dismissbd Without Kegàbd to Answer. — In a suit for an infringement, the bill wlU be dismissed, with- oul regard to the answer, where the patent is void on its face for want of novelty. �Infringement of Patent. �Whbelee, J. This suit is brought for relief against an in- fringement of re-is8ued letters patent No. 6,557, dated July 27, 1875, granted to the orator for an improvement in stereoscopes, oonsisting of a combination of legs, with the standard for the stereoscopes to stand upon. The answer denies the novelty of the invention. It is not very clear upon the evidence whether stereoscopes were made to stand upon legs before they were 80 made by the orator; but, ■whether they had been or not, such stands had long been in use for surveyor's compasses, theodolites, cameras, telescopes, and other mathematical and optical instruments, as is well and generally known. Stereo- scopes had been placed upon stands for a long time. �This part of tl^e patented invention does not relate to the stereoscopes themselves at ail, but only to the mode of mount- ing them. There could be no invention in putting a stereo- scope upon one kind of well known stands instead of another. It was merely putting the old stand to a new use. So, whether the invention was known or used or deseribed in the exact manner, or by the persons, set up in the answer, or not, the patent, in this respect, which is the only one in controversy, is void on its face for want of novelty, within common knowl- edge, which is sufficient for dismissing the bill without regard to the answer. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 537 ■ Terhune v. Phillips, 99 U. S. 592. �Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs. ��� �
