as metal against metal, will wear faster than dissimilar ones, such as metal against a nonmetallic surface, without in either case specifying any particular materials or substances, or any combination of them, not already in use. As so expressed, the invention, however meritorious, cannot be sustained. The most specific form in which it is stated. is anticipated by other similar structural combinations already existing in the art, and in its broader forms it is a mere abstraction, not within the protection of the patent law. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the bill, with costs. MERRIMAC MATTRESS MFG. CO. v. BROWN. (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. April 7, 1903.) 1. PATENTS-ANTICIPATION-SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF. The oral testimony of witnesses, each of whom testifies from his recollection of a different, unpatented article seen by him many years before, is insufficient to establish anticipation, under the rule that in such cases every reasonable doubt is to be resolved in favor of the patent. 2. SAME-INFRINGEMENT-COUCH-BED. The Leighton patent, No. 667,916, for an interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two complete, interlocking, laterally sliding sections, constructed and arranged to permit their separation into two independent beds without dismantling either of them, shows invention, and was not anticipated. Claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 held infringed. In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 667,916, for a couch-bed, granted to Eugene R. Leighton February 12, 1902. On final hearing. Milton E. Robinson, for complainant. Horace Van Everan, for defendant. HALE, District Judge. This suit is brought for infringement of United States letters patent No. 667,916, dated February 12, 1902, issued to the complainant in this case, on the invention of Eugene R. Leighton, for a new and useful improvement in couch-beds. Claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this patent are brought in issue in this suit, and are alleged to be infringed. These claims are as follows: "(5) An interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two complete interlocking laterally sliding sections, each having all of its parts, including the mattress support, permanently connected, the sections being relatively constructed, and arranged to permit their separation into two independent beds without dismantling either of them. "(6) An interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two complete, interlocking sections, adapted to be nested one within the other, each section having sidebars, end-bars and legs, all permanently connected together, and each section being separable from the other into an independent bed. "(7) An interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two complete, independent metallic beds, adapted to be arranged in interlocking relation with the legs of one bed between the side-bars of the other bed, and the end-bars of the firstmentioned bed above the side-bars of the second-mentioned bed, all without disconnecting any of the parts of either of said beds. "(8) An interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two complete, independent beds, each having side-bars, legs, end-bars, and a mattress stretched between said end-bars, all of said parts being permanently connected together, said beds being adapted to be arranged in telescoping, interlocking relation, with the legs and the end-bars of one bed located respectively between the sidebars and the side-bar and the mattress of the other bed, whereby one bed may be moved laterally a limited distance relatively to the other bed, or may be completely separated therefrom, without dismantling any of the parts of either." The object of the invention is shown by the specification to be: "To provide an article which can be converted from a bed to a couch, and vice versa, without the employment of operating mechanism, or other powertransmitting devices, whereby said article may be greatly simplified in construction." * The inventor further describes his invention as follows: "Referring to the drawings, it will be seen that the couch-beds are constructed in two sections, one of which telescopes within the other, and I shall refer to them as the 'main section' and the 'sliding section,' respectively. * As thus far described, the main frame is capable of use by itself without the addition of the sliding frame. The sliding frame is also capable of use by itself, and it may be disconnected from the main frame. By tilting the inner sides of the two sections, the sections may be separated without dismantling either of them; being each a complete bed without further additions. This is a new feature with me, for, as far as I am aware, I am the first to have provided an interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two interlocking nesting sections, which may be separated without dismantling either of them, and each of which, when separated, forms an independent bed. * From this description, it will be seen that the article described may be converted from a bed to a couch, and vice versa, by simply moving the sliding section laterally; and, as each section is supported independently of the other, little or no effort is required to move the sliding section upon its own casters. One of the wire mattresses is on a plane a little below the other, but the hair or cotton mattress which is placed upon them may be thicker upon one side than the other, to compensate for the difference in height of the two spring mattresses." Upon careful examination of the specification and claims, the court finds sufficient in them to constitute invention. The defendant has not filed a brief, nor appeared in court to argue the case. The answer sets up many defenses. The only defenses, however, about which any contest would, we think, be likely to arise, under the evidence, are noninfringement and anticipation. In the matter of noninfringement, the testimony shows that the bed produced in court as the infringing bed was bought of the defendant. Upon an examination of it, it is found to be ruder in its construction than the beds made under the patent in suit, and it is clear that it does not infringe some of the claims in the patent. But it is clear, also, from an examination of it, that it is an "interconvertible couch-bed, comprising two complete, interlocking, laterally sliding sections, each having all its parts, including the mattress support, permanently connected, the sections being relatively constructed and arranged to permit their separation into two independent beds without dismantling either of them." Upon an examination of the bed, we think that in the sale of this bed the defendant did infringe claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the patent in suit. To be sure, slight use by the defendant of the patent is shown; but the courts. have said that complainants are at liberty to sue a wrongdoer, whether he be manufacturer, seller, or user. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 Sup. Ct. 244, 28 L. Ed. 768; Tuttle v. Matthews (C. C.) 28 Fed. 98. Anticipation is the leading defense upon which testimony is offered. It is set up that this invention was in public use many years ago, in the shape of certain trundle-beds that ran under and were stored under full-sized beds. The witness Soule describes such a trundle-bed seen by him 25 years ago, when he was a boy of 15. The witness Rafferty also testifies to a similar trundle-bed seen by him 45 years ago. This bed pulled out at the foot, so that the two beds stood end to end. The witness Ford also testifies to another bed, used by his mother, pulling out from the foot, and standing foot to foot with the larger bed. The witness Brown testifies to a bed in Russia, seen by him when a boy, about which he testifies vaguely and from distant recollection. This bed was a combined bench and bed, and, if distinct and accurate description could have been furnished, it might have been found to have involved much that is covered by this patent. But there is not sufficient proof from recollection about any of the beds claimed to be anticipatory to show that they were "interconvertible couch-beds," or that they comprised two "complete, interlocking, laterally sliding sections." We find, however, that this case is disposed of on the question of anticipation by the principle announced by the Supreme Court in the Barbed Wire Patent Case, 143 U. S. 275, 12 Sup. Ct. 443, 36 L. Ed. 154. Mr. Justice Brown commented very fully and clearly upon certain unpatented devices claimed to be anticipatory of the patent in suit in that case, the existence of which was proved only by oral testimony. He says: "In view of the unsatisfactory character of such testimony, arising from the forgetfulness of witnesses, their liability to mistakes, their proneness to recollect things as the party calling them would have them recollect them, aside from the temptation to actual perjury, courts have not only imposed upon defendants the burden of proving such devices, but have required that the proof shall be clear, satisfactory, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses whose memories are prodded by the eagerness of interested parties to elicit testimony favorable to themselves are not usually to be depended upon for accurate information. The very fact, which courts, as well as the public, have not failed to recognize, that almost every important patent, from the cotton gin of Whitney to the one under consideration, has been attacked by the testimony of witnesses who imagined that they had made similar discoveries long before the patentee had claimed to have invented his device, bas tended to throw a certain amount of discredit upon all that class of evidence." Another leading case upon this subject is Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 21 L. Ed. 821, in which the court holds that the burden of proof rests upon the party setting up an unpatented article as proving prior use, and holds that "every reasonable doubt should be resolved against him." Applying the rule of these cases to the case at bar, the court reaches the conclusion that the evidence offered is of too vague a character to establish anticipation. The court finds, upon the evidence offered, that the patent is valid, and has been infringed by the defendant. Decree for complainant. COLT'S PATENT FIREARMS MFG. CO. v. WESSON et al. (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. April 21, 1903.) No. 1,182. 1. PATENTS-VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-SAFETY DEVICE FOR REVOLVERS. The Felton patent No. 535,097, for a safety device for revolvers, construed, and claim 1 held void for lack of invention, as showing merely the use of an old combination to perform an old function, and also for anticipation by the Galand French patent of addition of 1894; claims 2 and 3, when limited to the actual features of novelty in the device shown, held not infringed. In Equity. Suit for infringement of letters patent No. 535,097, for a safety device for revolvers, granted to F. B. Felton March 5, 1895. On final hearing. William A. Redding, for complainant. William K. Richardson and J. L. Stackpole, for defendants. BROWN, District Judge. This suit is for infringement of letters patent No. 535,097, to F. B. Felton, for a "safety device for revolvers,' issued March 5, 1895. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are in issue: "(1) In a revolver in which the cylinder is arranged to swing laterally outward and inward from and to its recess in the frame, the combination of a holding device to confine the cylinder in its recess, adapted to be operated at will to release the cylinder, and a movable connection between said holding device and the firing mechanism, operated by the movements of said holding device to lock and release the firing mechanism, substantially as set forth. "(2) In a revolver the combination of a cylinder arranged to swing laterally outward and inward from and to its recess in the frame, a holding device to confine the cylinder in its recess, and adapted to be moved at will to release it, a firing mechanism for said revolver, and a lever arranged between said holding device and said firing mechanism, one end of said lever engaging with said holding device and the other with a movable part of the firing mechanism, and said lever being operated by the movements of said holding device to lock and release the firing mechanism, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. "(3) In a revolver in which the cylinder is arranged to swing laterally outward and inward from and to its recess in the frame, the combination of a latch on the frame, constructed to confine the cylinder in its recess, and adapted to be moved at will to release it, and a lever, connected with said latch and constructed and arranged to stand in the path of a movable part of the firing mechanism so as to prevent the operation of said firing mechanism when the said latch is in the position to release the cylinder, substantially as and for the purpose set forth." The complainant says that this patent "is for a safety device for revolvers of a particular class," and the specification states: "My invention relates to an improvement in that class of revolvers in which the cylinder is journaled upon a crane arranged upon an axis below the cylinder, and parallel with the axis of the cylinder, so that the crane and the cylinder may be turned laterally outward from the frame, for loading, or for the ejection of shells." The specification further states: "The object of my invention is to provide such a connection between the cylinder and the lock or firing mechanism that the crane and cylinder cannot be turned laterally out of their normal position in the frame while the lock is cocked, that is, in the firing position, and that, should the lock be cocked when the crane and cylinder have been turned out of the frame, these cannot be returned to their normal position until the lock has been uncocked or brought to its position of rest.” The complainant contends that this paragraph does not fully set forth the objects or purposes of the invention; and upon its brief says that the primary and important purposes for which the safety device was invented were: First, to lock the firing mechanism simultaneously with the release of the cylinder by the manual operation of a sliding latch, at the will of the operator, so that, whenever the cylinder is unlocked and partially or wholly within the recess and frame, the firing mechanism is inoperative; second, to automatically release the firing mechanism, and automatically lock and center the cylinder simultaneously by the automatic operation of the sliding latch when the cylinder is in the firing position within the recess in the frame, so that, by the automatic operation of locking and centering the cylinder in the firing position, the firing mechanism will be automatically released and be operative. The Felton safety device is applied to a regular type of Colt revolver, and the firing mechanism and the breech-holding device are shown in Fig. 2 of the prior Ehbets patent, No. 392,503. This revolver is of the well-known side-swing type, in which the cylinder is fixed on a swinging crane, and has lateral movements inward and outward. Revolvers of the prior art have different movements in disengaging the cartridge cylinder from firing position. There are "revolvers with rigid arms and laterally swinging cylinders, in which the barrel and stock are rigidly connected by a frame in which is a recess to receive the cylinder"; "revolvers with cylinders turning sidewise, in which the cylinder is supported on a pivoted arm arranged to turn sidewise"; "revolvers with sliding barrels and cylinders, in which the cylinder slides forward and rearward"; "revolvers with barrels and cylinders. swinging sidewise"; "break-down revolvers"; "tip-up revolvers"; "revolvers with cylinders rotating on fixed axes, in which the cylinder has no movement other than the rotating movement." The prior art also shows breech-loading guns, in which the breech mechanism may be opened to permit the insertion of the cartridges, and in which the breech mechanism may be locked in or released from the firing position by a holding device. An idea common to various firearms of the prior art, containing the two well-known elements of a firing mechanism and a breech-holding device or bolt, was to combine a safety device with a holding bolt in such a way that the safety device should be moved by the bolt, and should block the movement of the firing mechanism when the breech was not fastened in firing position. It was also old to so arrange the safety device that its movement and the movement of the breech-holding device connected with it were obstructed when the firing mechanism was cocked, thus preventing the locking of the breech when the arm was cocked. The Felton safety device was an application of the familiar idea of a movable connection between the holding bolt and firing mechanism to the Colt revolver, which contained a bolt which locked and centered the cylinder. A pivoted part is so connected with |