$20. FEDRBAL BEFOBTEB. �aiits' position is that when the back of its blauk is straight- €ned, and the arnls are bent, no stock is forced ont to fill the angles, because they are already formed; but that these "de- fined angles have been forced from each other by driving surplus metal between them," It is agreed that the angles, after the arms are bent, are one-fourth of an inch further apart that they were before the bending. The theory of the defendant, as stated by its expert, is this: "There can beno pushing out of the metal towards the angle, because there is already as much more metal in the vicinity of the angle than is required there, as the angle is greater than a right angle. Theref ore, instead of the surplus metal being pushed towards the angle, it niust be pushed away from the angle and towards the center ; it oannot be pushed towards the angle, because the angle, having already too much, metal near it, more cannot be. pushed there. The bringing the upper portion between the ears into a straight line contracts that pcrtipn and forces the metal down into the center, and so as to.produce the nec- €ssary elongation of the back between the two previouply- formedsharp corners."' �, I am of opinion that the defendants' theory. is , the oj^e which is bettiir sustained by the testiruony and the teste than the pther, and that in the defendants' blanks.thercis, po,sub- stantial upsetting of surplus ofr metal so as to foini sharp angles. The surplus metal is used in the elongated back, and not in the angles. It follows that infringement has not been proved, and that the bill should be dismissed. ��� �
