defences, set up that the alleged invention was not new and that it was not the proper subject matter of letters patent.

1906

THE COPELANDCHATTERSON Co.

υ.

The following extract from the specification gives in the inventor's own terms a general description of the PAQUETTE. invention that he claims to have made:

"This invention relates to manifold sheets and more particulary to such as are designed for use in rendering accounts or bills. It seeks to provide such sheets in convenient and compact size and form, so that they may be used in a typewriter of ordinary size without unduly diminishing the size of the bill heads; also to provide binding margins in duplicate or triplicate leaves of manifold sheets, such binding margins preferably having apertures whereby they may be secured in place of a loose leaf binder when detached from the original leaf or bill head, such margin being of sufficient width to prevent any of the matter written on the duplicate leaf from being covered up in the binder.

"In the sheets embodying the invention the original and duplicate leaves are connected together along a line of separation at which the leaves are intended to be detached. This line of separation will be herein termed a score line. The original and duplicate leaves are folded one upon another so that when a carbon sheet is slipped in between the two, matter written on the original leaf will be duplicated on the duplicate leaf. In order that the manifold sheet may be sufficiently narrow to pass through typewriters of ordinary width and at the same time wide enough not to require the original leaf to be narrower than the bill heads in general use, the binding margin is generally folded along a line running mediately through it. By this arrangement the sheet is gotten into the most convenient and compact size and form. When the sheet has been filled out and the original leaf detached from the duplicate leaf, the latter is

Reasons for
Judgment.

COPELAND

v.

Judgment.

1906 filed in the binder. For this purpose the binding margin THE of the duplicate leaf is provided with apertures so that it CHATTERSON may be filed on a loose leaf binder having posts to Co. engage the apertures. In some cases the manifold sheet PAQUETTE has two duplicates, each duplicate having a binding Reasons for margin provided with apertures and in some cases the third leaf may be used as an original leaf or bill head whose matter will be duplicated on the back of the middle or duplicate leaf. In this last case the binding margin will be omitted from the third leaf. In all cases the binding margin of the duplicate or duplicates is so disposed as not to cover any of the writing space of such duplicate or duplicates."

Then follow references to the drawings in which by twenty figures the inventor shows various forms of sheets that he says are covered by his invention.

The first claim in the specification which, as has been seen, has been disclaimed as being too broad, was made in these terms:

"1. A manifold sheet having an original leaf and a duplicate leaf connected at a score line and folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured binding margin which makes it of greater actual area than the original leaf whereby when detached the duplicate leaf may be filed by means of its apertured margin."

The second claim, the validity of which is in issue in this case, is made in these terms:"2. A manifold sheet having an original leaf and a duplicate leaf connected at a score line and folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured binding margin which makes it of greater actual area than the original leaf, the duplicate leaf having its binding margin folded over, whereby when the duplicate leaf is detached its margin may be unfolded for filing."

Now the first question to be determined is whether there is in fact any difference between the sheet described

1906

COPELAND

Co.

v.

Judgment.

in the first claim, which it is admitted cannot be supported, and the sheet described in the second claim. In THE the latter the duplicate leaf is said to have "its binding CHATTERSON margin folded over," and there is that verbal difference. But that is a matter of words and not of substance; for PAQUETTE. it is not possible, it seems to me, to make a sheet in Reasons for accordance with the first claim without folding over the binding margin of the duplicate leaf. It will be seen by reference thereto that what is called the original leaf of the sheet is connected with what is called the duplicate leaf, by a score line; that the two leaves are folded together; and that the duplicate leaf with its apertured binding margin has a greater actual area than the original leaf has.

Now it is obvious that the score line that connects the two leaves of the sheet and permits them to be separated from each other must be placed either in the line on which the sheet is folded or on one side or the other of that line. If it is placed on the line of fold the two leaves will be equal in area, and if it is placed on that side of the line of fold that adjoins the duplicate leaf, the latter will, when the leaves are separated, be smaller than the original leaf. In order that the duplicate leaf with its margin may be larger in area than the original leaf it is necessary to place the score line on that side of the line of fold that adjoins the original leaf. That is, a portion of the margin of the duplicate leaf must be folded over. That follows from the language used in the first claim. It is expressly mentioned in the second claim. But in substance there is in this respect no difference between the two claims. Neither is there any difference of language with which the two claims conclude. In the first claim it is stated that when the original leaf is detached the duplicate leaf may be filed by means of its apertured margin; while in the second claim it is stated that when the duplicate leaf is detached

1906

COPELAND

Co.

the margin may be unfolded for filing. But in each THE case equally, when the two leaves are detached the one CHATTERSON from the other "the margin of the duplicate leaf may be "unfolded for filing," and it "may also be filed by PAQUETTE. means of the apertured margin." And it being Reasons for admitted that the first claim cannot be supported the second claim fails.

2.

Judgment,

The fourth claim, the validity of which is also in issue, is made in the following terms:

"4. A manifold sheet having an original leaf, and a "duplicate leaf connected together at a score line, and "folded together, the duplicate leaf having a binding "margin on the side next the original leaf, which makes "it of greater actual area than the original leaf, the line "of fold for the sheet running medially across the margin

of the duplicate leaf, whereby when detached said "margin of the duplicate leaf may be unfolded for "filing."

Now as to this claim, it will in the first place be seen that the binding margin is not described as it is in the first and second claims as "an apertured binding margin." But nothing turns upon either the omission or inclusion of the word "apertured." It is no new thing to have apertures in sheets or leaves to enable them to be placed with ease and facility on files or in binders; and in the present case it makes no difference in the validity of the claim whether the binding margin is described as "apertured" or not. Then in the second place it will be seen that the expression "the duplicate leaf having a binding "margin on the side next the original 'leaf,'" is not an accurate or apt description of what is obviously intended, unless we are to distinguish between a margin and a binding margin; and I do not understand that any such distinction is to be made. The greater the number of leaves to be bound together the larger the margin required; but the whole margin may with propriety be re

1906

THE COPELAND

Co.

Judgment.

garded as something needed for the purpose of binding the leaves together. That is, the margin as a whole is a binding margin. But if, as stated in the fourth claim, CHATTERSON "the line of fold for the sheet runs medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf," then one half of the mar- PAQUETTE. gin must be on that side of the line of fold, that is, next Reasons for to the duplicate leaf, as distinguished from its margin, and the other half of such margin must be on the side. next to the original leaf. That is, a part of the binding margin only, and not the whole of it, is on the side of the line of fold which is next to the original leaf. But that was equally the case with respect to the sheets described in the first or second claims, the only difference being that in the fourth claim the part of the margin of the duplicate leaf that is on the side of the line of fold next to the original leaf constitutes exactly one half of such margin. Otherwise there is no substantial difference. If the fourth claim is to be supported, it is on the ground alone that "the line of fold for the sheet" is described as "running medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf." That question will be discussed later. In the meantime it will, I think, be convenient to go through the other claims. of the specification in question in this action, and see if there is in the sheets described any other element or feature to support the plaintiff's patent.

The sixth claim is made in these terms:

"6. A manifold sheet having an original leaf and a "duplicate leaf connected together at a score line and "folded together, the duplicate leaf having an apertured "binding margin, which makes it of greater actual area "than the original leaf, the line of fold for the sheet "running medially across the margin of the duplicate leaf "and so that part of said binding margin lies in the plane "of the original leaf and part in the plane of the duplicate "leaf, whereby when detached said margin of the dupli"cate leaf may be unfolded for filing."