DOTJELE-POINTBD TACK CO. V. TWO EIVEBB MANUP'a 00. 33 �îs the diagonal eut on the same sides of the two points, and the angle at which the points run from the body of the staple, as shown in his devioe. Tbis is what Miles invented, and nothing more; and since we find that the formof the body of his staple, and the diagonal eut of the penetrating points, were old when he devised his staple, I am of the opinion that the angle at which the prongs run from the body of the sta- ple, and the fact that in his device both points are eut diag- onally on the under side, do not give to the device such origi- nality and novelty as are essential to patentability; nor, in my judgment, can the mere fact that it is so construeted as to be adapted to use upon pails make it patentable. The leading feature of complainant's device, though it may give to it utility and value, seems to have been produced rather by mere change of form from that of deviees which preceded it, than by originality of construction. The adjustment of parts is purely mechanical, and in the previous state of the art required only the exercise of mechanical skill. A staple with one point beveled on one side, and the other point bev- eled on the opposite side, was old. It was common knowl- edge that, as the points should be driven into the wood, they would be forced in different directions, because each point would be pushed in an opposite direction from the bevel. Now, the construction of a staple so that both points should be beveled on the same, that is, the under side, thereby caus- ing both points, when driven into the wood, to incline or bend in the same direction, that is, a direction opposite the bevel, would seem to be, in the language of the supreme court, "but the carrying forward, or new or more extended application, of a thought original with others," or well known in me- chanics, and not such an invention as will sustain a patent. �The learned counsel for complainant, in argument, relied strongly on the case of Rogers\. Sargent, TBlatch. 607, which invelved the validity of a patent for a wire staple with cor- rugated or indented backs or ends. In that case the patent was sustained, and counsel have argued that the invention was merely a corrugated staple, the mere use of a piece of corru- gated wire, such as every one had seen long before, but which �v.3,no.l — 3 ����
