BMITH V. MERBIAM. 903 �hibit No 1 that is not the case. The same difficulty existed, for the same reason, in Exhibit P, and in ail the forms of the Von Hofe stopper before Exhibit No* 1. The slot is called "an eccentrio slot," in patent N"o. 163,553. Its existence made the action of the structure uncertain, and the struct- ure must fall within the category of an incomplete experi- ment towards the invention of De Qnillfeldt. �5. The only other defence insisted on in this case is the alloged prior invention of Otto. That bas been considered ftilly in the decision in the HoUender case. �There must be a decree for the plaintiffs on the first and ninth claims of their re-issue, and for a reference in the usual fonn as to profits and damages^ and a perpetuai injunc- tion, with oosts. ���Bmtth and another v. Mebbtam and another. �{Gircuit Court, S. MasHacl),useUs. January 22, 1881.) �1. Stay-Steep— Anticipation. �A stay made of a folded strip of leather for covering and strengthen- ing seams of boots or shoes, and provlded with marginal grooves for reception of the stitches, and beaded edges for protection of the same, is not patentable as an article of manufacture, in view of the prior existence and use of harness trimming, ladies' belts, and straps for pocket-books made of folded strips of leather, and provided with mar- ginal grooves and beaded edges which served the similar purpose of receiving and protecting stitches. �2. Samb— Rb-Issub. �Where the original patent described and showed that, by applying a stay-strip to the seam of a boot or shoe, there would be f ormed upon its under side a central longitudinal channel or recession, by virtueof its being saddled over the seam, a valid re-issue cannot be taken for a stay-strip having such a central recession lormed in it beforehand to ut or hug the seam. �In Equity. �Geo. L. Roberts a Broi., for complainants. �E. P. Brown, for defendants. ��� �
