594 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Benjamin Priee, for complainants. �Brown e Smith, for defendants. �Morris, D. J. Infringement of patent. This is a bill in equity filed by the complainants for alleged infringement by the defendants of two letters patent for improvement in sol- dering irons, the title to wiiieh the complainants have ac- quired by assignment. The first is the "Barker" patent No. 103,125, granted May 17, 1870; re-issued January 11, 1876, No. 6,846; second re-iasue July 1, 1879, No. 8,781. The second is the "Bostwick" patent No. 104,412, granted June 21, 1870; re-issued October 29, 1878, No. 8,466. �The original Barker patent contains the following descrip- tion and claim : "In constructing this machine I make the disk or casting of sufficient thiokness to retain the beat, and of suitable size to cover the lid of the can with the recess, B, in the under side, to give room for the convex lid of the can, and to confine the soldering process to the outer edge of the lid or cover. To this disk I eonnect the handle, C, of suffi- cient length to hold when heated. At the side of and par- allel with the handle I eonnect the sraall rod or wire, D, ■with a loop or ring Connecting it with the handle at the top and the bottom, passing through the disk. A, so as to allow it to slide up and down." iie then describes the process of sealing a can by the use of his invention. The rod, D, is pushed down through the disk, and placed upon the center of the cover to hold it. The heated disk is then pushed down in contact with the solder or sealing material till it is melted, then turned back and forth till the solder is spread evenly around the lid. The disk is then to be withdrawn with the rod, D, still prossed upon the lid till the solder or sealing material sets or hardens, when the operation is completed. What he claims and desires to secure by letters patent is "the disk. A, with the recess, B, in the nnder side, as set forth, in combination with the movable rod or wire, D, to hold the lid, while sealing or closing." �It is conceded that there was nothing new in the annular soldering iron. The claim, therefore, of Barker in this orig- inal patent was substantially for the rod or wire so combined ����
