US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Claim 4 of reissued letters patent No. 1527, granted to John Richards, August 15, 1863, for a "guide and support for scroll saws," the original patent, No. 35,390, having been granted to him May 25, 1862, for an "improved guide and support for scroll saws," namely,

"4. An anti-friction guide which is adjustable so as to accommodate different thicknesses of saw blades, and to compensate for wear, in combination with the upper portion of a web saw blade, substantially as set forth,"

does not cover an arrangement in which a band saw is used, passing over wheels, and running constantly in one direction, toward the table on which the stuff lies, and having a tension over the peripheries of the wheels.

Claim 5 of said reissue, namely,

"5. The combination of the anti-friction saw support and guide, or the equivalent thereof, with an adjustable guard or its equivalent, substantially as and for the purpose set forth,"

is not infringed by an arrangement in which such a band saw is used and the guard does not hold down the stuff against the upward lifting action of the saw, because the saw is constantly passing downward.

The claim of letters patent No. 78,880, granted to J. A. Fay & Co., June 16th, 1868, for an "improvement in guides for band saws," on the invention of John Lemman, namely,

"The combination of the roller b with fixed lateral guides c c c, one or more, arranged and operated substantially in the manner and for the purposes specified,"

is for the combination of an anti-friction smooth faced wheel to support the back or thin edge of the saw, and to have lateral adjustment, presenting different points to wear, with the fixed guides, and is not infringed by an arrangement in which the wheel has two grooves in it, in one of which the saw runs, and in the other of which it can be made to run by lateral adjustment.

Claim 1 of letters patent No. 120,949, granted to J. A. Fay & Co., November 14, 1871, for an "improvement in band sawing machines," on the invention of William H. Doane and William P. McKee, namely,

"1. The frame A A' A'' in combination with the lower arbor bearing, said frame being constructed as herein described, with a depression, A''', permitting the ready removal of the arbor, as explained,"

is not infringed by an arrangement in which the depression does not leave exposed a seat which is entirely open upward and the arbor bearing cannot be removed without detaching the pulley from the arbor.

Claim 2, namely,

"2. The arrangement of frame A A' A'' A''', and of the horizontally and vertically adjustable arbor bearing C, D, D', E, E', G, H,

Page 109 U. S. 409

"

A

is not infringed by an arrangement which does not have the frame and depression of claim 1, or the elements D D', or the same or equivalent means of adjusting such arbor bearing either horizontally or vertically.

Claim 3, namely, "3. The arrangement of step or saddle K and its contained boa or bearing L L'," covers, as an element of the arrangement, among other things, a spring which carries the weight of the saddle, and gives an elastic tension to the saw, and is not infringed by an arrangement in which there is a rigid saddle and no spring.

Claim 4, namely,

"4. In combination with the upper arbor L', the lower arbor bearing E, adjustable both vertically and horizontally, as shown and described and for the purpose set forth,"

in not infringed by an arrangement which does not infringe claims 2 and 3.

Bill in equity for infringement of a patent.