BARBES V. BALLETT. 131 �The defendant bas a patent of a later date than the plaintif 's oiiginal patent, and produces one of his machines; and the question is whether the cutting or trimming device made under the defendant's patent infringes the plaintiff's monopoly. �It is net oontended that the reissue is Toid. The mechanism de- scribed agrees entirely with that in the first patent, and though the claims are more numerous, there is a claim in the original which seems to be broad enough for all the purposes of this case; The reisgue brings out more fully wbat the complainant now insists upon as the distinguishing features of his invention, — that is, cutting against the edge of the stock in a line parallel with the line of feed,- — and the question is whether he is right in this contention. �The defendant bas produced several patents which antedate the plaintiff's, the earliest of which seems of a very broad and general character, and perhaps would have controlled both of the machines in this case if it had not expired. It may be, however, that the plain- tiff bas a patentable improvement on all that had gone before, and if 80, and if the defendant uses substantially similar means to produce a like resuit, be infringes. I think the plaintiff bas made ont that his machine does differ in the way that he says it does from the earlier machines, which employ a reciprocating knife. They appear to be organized to eut by up and down movements of various sorts, or by a drawing movement, or by a rotary sawing movement. The evidence further proves that there is utility in the change which the plaintiff bas made. Tho defendant appears to me to make use of a device similar in operation to produce a similar result. His knife is pivoted to an independent carrier or arm above the plate, instead of being attacbed to the plate, and it works up and down to a certain degree; but being pivoted at an angle to the bed-plate the blowof the needle-bar which brings it down forces it forward against the edge of the stock, and most of the cutting is done during that part of the motion. In so far as it bas a slight drawing motion, it may or or may not be an improvement. The knife reciprocates, not, indeed, by the machinery alone, for the feed pushes it back after it has com- pleted its eut, but it moves backward and forward automatically, which is all that reciprocating means. �It was argued that the plaintiff's cutter does not trim the work in a line parallel with the feed when straight work is being stitched, beeause the knife moves in the arc, of a circle. The evidence, however, is, ��� �
