EIRBT V. ABMSTRONG. 801 �particular degrees of beat are to be employed; but some ap- proximation oogbt to be indicated by the patentee, and it Bhould not be Bo wide of the mark as to involve invention or frequent experiment to ascertain the proper temperature. The complainant's bill must be dismissed, with costs. ���KiBBY V. aBMSTBONO and others. �JOircvM Court, D. Indiana, Pebruaiy, 1881. �1. Ikpbingembiit— Profi3:8— BuBDEN OF Pboof. �Wliere the patent is for an improvement in machines, the hurden is on the complainant to separate the profits due to the improyement from the general profits. of the business This nile is recognized, ùot reversed, in Elizabeth v. Pavement Oo. 97 U. 8. 126. �2. Bamb— Pbofits Debivbd feom Iufbovbhbnt — Pboof, �Where the complainant fails to show what, if any, deflnite part of the whole profits were produced by his improvement, bis recovery must be nominal only. �3. BefeeencBt-Cobts. �Costs of reference taxed against complainant. �Mitchell d Holmes, for complainant. �Pwrkinson e Parkinson, for defendants. �Gresham, D. J. Josiah Kirby filed his bill against Thomas Annstrong, Eobert Armstrong, William L. Standish, and G. W. Geddes, charging that the defendants had infringed the complainant's letters patent, numbered 72,505, issued on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1867, for a new and useful improvement in bung eutting, with a prayer for an injunc-' tioii and a recovery of profits. On the hearing before the circuit judge it was found that the defendants G. W. Geddes and William L. Standish had infringed the rights oHhe com- plainant as to the first, third, and fourth claims set forth in the letters patent. The two last-named defendants were enjoined from the f urther using of the complainant's inven- tion, and there was a reference to the master to take and state an account of the profits which the defendants had made by infringing. �v.5,no.9 — 51 ����
