[265] The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Benjamin F. Thurston, for appellants: The original inventor will have a right to treat as infringers all who make machines operating on the same principles, and performing the same functions by analogous means or equivalent combinations. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 556 (24: 1054); Clough v. Barker, 106 U. S. 167 (27: 134); Duff v. Sterling Pump Co. 107 U. S. 639 (27:518); Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co. 113 U. S. 159 (28:939); Am. Whip Co. v. Lombard, 4 Cliff. 507; Dunham v. Kimball, 17 Fed. Rep. 810: United Nickel Co. v. Pendleton, 15 Fed. Rep. 745; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 708 (26: 279); The Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1 (31: 863). Messrs. J. E. Maynadier and George E. Smith, for appellee: Defendant's machine does not infringe, unless it contains all the elements of the Morley combination, or their equivalents or substitutes, within the meaning of the patent law. Prouty v. Ruggles, 41 U. S. 16 Pet. 341 (10: 985); Eames v. Godfrey, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 78 (17:547); Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U. S. 187 (24: 84); Gage v. Herring, 107 U. S. 640 (27: 601); Gould v. Rees, 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 187 (21:39); McMurray v. Mallory, 111 U. S. 103 (28: 366); Gill v. Wells, 89 U. S. 22 Wall. 1 (22: 699); Brown v. Davis, 116 U. S. 237 (29: 659); Sargent v. Hall Safe & Lock Co. 114 U. S. 63 (29: 67). The stitching mechanisms are substantially and radically different. Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U. S. 408 (27:979); Union Water-Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 832 (25: 1024). The scope of letters patent cannot be enlarged by the language used in other parts of the specification. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Mellon, 104 U. S. 112, 118 (26: 639, 641); Western Electric Mfg. Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. 114 U. S. 447 (29: 210). Results are not patentable, but only specific mechanism or combinations of mechanism to accomplish results. Seymour v. Osborne, 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 516 (20:33); O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U. &. 15 How. 119 (14:601); Burr v. Cowperthwait, 4 Blatchf. 163-167; Am. Pin Co. v. Oakville Co. 3 Blatchf 190; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288 (24: 103); Werner v. King, 96 U. S. 230 (24:614); Case v. Browm, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 320, 325 (17: 817); Union Paper Bag Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 Ü. S. 120, 125 (24: 935, 936); Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 23 (30: 853, 856); Sharp v. Riessner, 119 U. S. 631 (30: 507); Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S. 412 (30: 712); Snow v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 121 U. S. 617 (30: 1004); Electric R. R. Signal Co. v. Hall R. Signal Co. 114 U. S. 87 (29: 96). Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: This is a suit in equity, brought November 6, 1882, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, by the Morley Sewing Machine Company and the Morley Button Sewing Machine Company against Charles B. Lancaster, for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 236,350, granted January 4, 1881, to James H. Morley, E. S. Fay, and Henry E. Wilkins, on the invention of said Morley, on an application filed June 23, 1880, for an improvement in machines for sewing buttons on fabrics. The machine of the defendant is constructed in accordance with the description contained in letters patent No. 268,369, granted November 28, 1882, to Joseph Mathison, William D. Allen, and C. B. Lancaster, on the invention of said Mathison, for improvements in machines for securing buttons to material, on an application filed August 1, 1882. The specification of the Morley patent says: "My invention consists in mechanism for automatically sewing shank buttons on to fabrics, shoes, etc., and the objects of my invention are to form a double-threaded stitch on the top side of the material being sewed upon, transversely to the direction of feed, and on the reverse side of the material two parallel lines of stitches at right angles to the first named ones, to make alternately long and short stitches, and to so feed buttons to be sewed by said machines as to present them at the proper time and in the proper place to be operated upon." The speci fication then describes, by reference to twentyfour figures of drawings, the mechanical means used by the patentee to perform the mechanical operations described. The specification then proceeds: "Having thus described the machine [266] and constructions set forth in the drawings, I wish it to be understood that the same is only one of different mechanisms which I have contemplated, and which may be effectually employed for carrying out the main feature of my invention, to wit: the automatic mechanical sewing of buttons to a fabric. Thus, different means may be adopted for carrying the thread through the eye of the button into the fabric, as, for instance, passing the hooked needle through said eye to a position to seize the thread from the straight needle, or form a suitable carrier and then draw the loop down through the fabric to be secured beneath by a shuttle or needle [thread, or the eye-pointed needle may be used in connection with a loop spreader and shuttle for carrying a thread through the loop, a single thread or two threads being used. It will further be understood that wires may be sometimes substituted for threads, and that other feed mechanisms may be employed, the needles moving with, but not controlling, the fabric, as in the construction described." There are eighteen claims in the patent, only four of which are relied upon by the plaintiffs namely: claims 1, 2, 8, and 13, which are as fol fows: "1. The combination, in a machine for sewing shank buttons to fabrics, of buttonfeeding mechanism, appliances for passing a thread through the eye of the buttons and locking the loop to the fabric, and feeding mechanism, substantially as set forth. 2. The combination, in a machine for sewing shank-buttons to fabrics, of a needle and operating mechanism, appliances for bringing the buttons succesfully to positions to permit the needle to pass through the eye of each button, and means for locking the loop of thread carried by the needle to secure the button to the fabric, substantially as set forth." "8. The combination, in a ma chine for sewing buttons to fabrics, of button | the eye. Therefore, when a button arrives over In the Morley patent, there is a contrivance for feeding the fabric so as to space the stitches, and consequently to space the buttons. The needles, while inserted in the fabric, move in the direction of the feed, carrying the fabric with them. The motion of the needles or feed is derived from revolving cams, and the two needles swing like an inverted pendulum. This kind of feed was well known in machines for sewing leather, prior to the date of the Morley patent. This feeding contrivance is what is called in claim 1, "feeding mechanism,” and in claim 8, "feeding devices." beneath, and when the loop is formed, passes [269] described as passing through the eye of the | the motion of the needle or feed being derived button, although it is stated that instead the from revolving cams. The expert for the dehooked needle may pass through such eye. fendant says that he finds no substantial difThe passage of the needle through the eye, after ference between the mechanism which feeds it has passed through the fabric, holds the but- the fabric in the two machines. ton upon the fabric. When the eye-pointed needle retracts and forms a loop above the eye of the button, a loop spreader is employed to spread the loop; and a shuttle carrying either one thread or two threads, is passed through the loop, the eye pointed needle, in its retraction, carrying, by means of the loop, the thread or threads furnished by the shuttle, and the stitch being the ordinary lock stitch. The stitch described in the Morley patent as made by eye[270] pointed and hooked needles, both operating from the lower side of the fabric, and making transverse stitches on its upper side and longitudinal stitches on its lower side, is a stitch known prior to the date of the Morley patent. [271] As to the stitching mechanism of the Lancas- In the Lancaster machine, there is a contrivance for feeding the fabric so as to space the stitches, and consequently to space the buttons, and the machine feeds by means of a single needle which reciprocates in a straight line, and, while it is inserted in the fabric, moves in the direction of the feed, carrying the fabric with it, In the operation of the Lancaster machine, after the needle has passed through the eye of the button, the end of the so called trough and the needle move together, while the needle is making its feeding motion. The so called trough then stands still until the needle has ascended and pulled a loop of thread through the eye, and has again pierced the fabric. When the needle has got into the fabric a second time the button is pulled out of the end of the trough by the retreat of the trough towards the rear of the machine, and is so pulled out because at that time the fabric is standing still and the button is held to it by the loop of thread which is passed through the eye of the button. After the button is thus pulled out of the end of the trough, the trough stands still for a while, while a loop is passed over the body of the button, as above described, and the trough then returns again, so as to hold the eye of a second button in the path of the descending needle, the button being thus released, not by the mo [272] tion of the fabric, but by the motion of the trough which carries the column of buttons. It satisfactorily appears, that the Morley machine was the first one which accomplished the result of automatically separating buttons which have a shank from a mass of the same, conveying them in order to a position where they can be selected by the machine, one after another, and, by sewing mechanism, coupled with suitable mechanism for feeding the fabric, be sewed thereto at prescribed suitable distances apart from each other. The machine performs automatically these three functions of selecting, sewing and spacing. The problem to be performed was to select from a mass of buttons, furnished with heads and wire eyes projecting therefrom, single buttons, and to present them in succession to the needle of a sewing mechanism, so that the needle could pass through [273] the eye and secure it to the fabric. Machinery existed before for selecting from a mass woodscrew blanks, horse nails, and pins, and delivering them to other machinery; but, in such constructions, the shank of the article being heavier than its head, the tendency was for the articles to arrange themselves in the way with the shanks downward, the heads being supported on the top surface of the way. With such buttons as are used in the two machines in controversy, as the heads are much heavier than the shanks and the eyes combined, the buttons will not naturally arrange themselves with their shanks downward. It is therefore necessary to have some means for turning each button into such a position that a plane passing through its eye shall be perpendicular to a plane passing through the long axis of the sewing needle, so as to insure the passage of the needle through the eye. No machine existing prior to Morley's is shown to have accomplished that operation. The substance of the defense in the case is, that there are certain specific differences between the button-feeding mechanisms in the two machines, and also certain specific differences between their sewing mechanisms; and hence that there is no infringement. This was the view taken by the circuit court in its opinion. 23 Fed. Rep. 344. Morley, having been the first person who succeeded in producing an automatic machine for sewing buttons of the kind in question upon fabrics, is entitled to a liberal construction of the claims of bis patent. He was not a mere improver upon a prior machine which was capable of accomplishing the same general result; in which case, his claims would properly receive a narrower interpretation. This principle is well settled in the patent law, both in this country and in England. Where an invention is one of a primary character, and the mechanical functions performed by the machine are, as a whole, entirely new, all subsequent machines which employ substantially the same means to accomplish the same result are infringements, although the subsequent machine may contain improvements in the separate mechanisms which go to make up the machine. In McCormick v. Talcott, 61 U. S. 20 How. [274] 402, 405 [15:930,931], the inquiry was, whether McCormick was the first person who invented, in a reaping machine, the apparatus called a divider, performing the required functions, or whether he had merely improved an existing apparatus, by a combination of mechanical devices which performed the same functions in a better manner. This court, speaking by Mr. Justice Grier, said: "If he " (the patentee) "be the original inventor of the device or machine called the divider, he will have a right to treat as infringers all who make dividers operating on the same principle, and performing the same functions by analogous means or equivalent combinations, even though the infringing machine may be an improvement of the original, and patentable as such. But if the invention claimed be itself but an improvement on a known machine by a mere change of form or combination of parts, the patentee cannot treat another as an infringer who has improved the original machine by use of a different form or combination performing the same functions. The inventor of the first improvement cannot invoke the doctrine of equivalents to suppress all other improvements which are not mere colorable invasions of the first." So, also, in Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Sayles 97 U. S. 554, 556 [24:1053, 1054], this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Bradley, said, in regard to brakes for eight-wheeled railroad cars: "Like almost all other inventions, that of double brakes came in when, in the progress of mechanical improvement, it was needed; and being sought by many minds, it is not wonderful that it was developed in different and independent forms, all original, and yet all bearing a somewhat general resemblance to each other. In such cases, if one inventor precedes all the rest, and strikes out something which includes and underlies all that they produce, he acquires a monopoly, and subjects them to tribute. But if the advance toward the thing desired is gradual, and proceeds step by step, so that no one can claim the complete whole, then each is entitled only to the specific form of device which he produces, and every other inventor is entitled to his own specific form, so long as it differs from those of his competitors, and does not include theirs. These general principles are so obvious that they need no argument or illustration to support them." The same view was directly applied in Clough v. Barker, 106 U. S. 166, 177 [27: 134, 138], to the Clough patent for an improvement in gas burners. The first claim of that patent was for "the bat-wing burner, perforated at the base, in combination with the surrounding tube, substantially as described." The second claim read thus: "In combination with the batwing burner, perforated at the base, and surrounding tube, the tubular valve for regulating the supply of external gas to the burner, substantially as described." It appeared that in no prior structure had a valve arrangement been applied to regulate the flow of gas in such a combination as that covered by the first claim of the patent. It was, therefore, held that the patentee was entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents, as applied to the combination covered by the second claim. In the defendant's burner, the regulation was made by a tubular valve on the outside of the perforations, instead of on the inside, as in the patent, but performing its work by being screwed up or down, as in the patent. This court said:" Although in the Clough structure [275] the burner and surrounding tube revolve to- although the valve proper was an annulus, and gether in adjusting their position in reference the extended surface was a disc inside of the to that of the tubular valve, so as to let in or annulus, the Richardson valve proper being a turn off the supply of gas through the perfora- disc and the extended surface an annulus surtions, and although in the Clough structure the rounding the disc; and although the valve flame revolves by the revolution of the burner, proper of the defendant had two ground joints, [277] and although in the defendant's burners the and only the steam which passed through one revolution of the surrounding tube regulated of them passed through the stricture, while, in the supply of gas through such perforations, the Richardson valve, all the steam which and neither the burner nor the flame revolved, passed into the air passed through the stricture; the defendants' valve arrangement must be held and although in the defendant's valve the hudto have been an equivalent for that of Clough dling chamber was at the center, instead of at to the full extent to which that of Clough goes, the circumference, and was in the seat of the involving, perhaps, patentable improvements, valve, under the head, instead of in the head, but still tributary or subject to the patent of and the stricture was at the circumference of Clough. It is true that that patent describes the seat of the valve, instead of being at the the tubular valve as being inside of the burner-circumference of the head. These conclusions tube. But Clough was the first person who were based on the fact, stated in the opinion applied a valve regulation of any kind to the of the court, that no prior structure was combination to which he applied it, and the known or recognized as producing any such first person who made such combination; and result as that produced by Richardson's aphe is entitled, under decisions heretofore made paratus; that the prior structures never efby this court, to hold as infringements all fected the kind of result attained by his apvalve regulations, applied to such a combina-paratus, because they lacked the thing which tion, which perform the same office in substan- gave success; and that, taught by Richardtially the same way as, and were known son, and by the use of his apparatus, it was [276] equivalents for, his form of valve regulation." not difficult for skilled mechanics to take the See also Duff v. Sterling Pump Co. 107 U. S. prior structures and so arrange and use them 636, 639 [27: 517, 518]. as to produce more or less of the beneficial results first made known by him. The same doctrine was applied by this court in Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Vale Co. 113 U. S. 157 [28: 939], to the Richardson patent, the claim of which was "A safety valve with the circular or annular flange or lip cc, constructed in the manner, or substantially in the manner, shown, so as to operate as and for the purpose herein described." It appeared that Richardson was the first person who made a safety value which, while it automatically relieved the pressure of steam in the boiler, did not, in effecting that result, reduce the pressure to such an extent as to make the use of the relieving apparatus practically impossible, because of the expenditure of time and fuel necessary to bring up the steam again to the proper working standard; and that his valve was the first which had a strictured orifice leading from the huddling chamber to the open air, to retard the escape of the steam, and to enable the valve to open with increasing power against the action of the spring, and to close suddenly, with small loss of pressure in the boiler. It was held, that that claim covered a valve in which were combined an initial area, an additional area, a huddling chamber beneath the additional area, and a strictured orifice such as that above mentioned, the orifice being proportioned to the strength of the spring. It was also held, that under the claim of a second patent, namely: "The combination of the surface beyond the seat of the safety valve, with the means herein described for regulating or adjusting the area of the passage for the escape of steam, substantially as and for the purpose described," the patentee was entitled to cover the combination, with the surface of the huddling chamber and the strictured orifice, of a screw ring to be moved up or down to obstruct such orifice more or less, in the manner described. It was further held, that both of the patents were infringed by a valve which produced the same effects in operation by the means described in Richardson's claims, The doctrine thus applicable to a machine patent is of a kindred character with that applied, in this country and in England, to a patent for a process. In Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707 [26: 279], the claim of Tilghman's patent was for "the manufacturing of fat-acids and glycerine from fatty bodies by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure." In the opinion of this court, delivered by Mr. Justice Bradley, the claim was sustained as a claim for a process, irrespective of the particular mode or form of apparatus for carrying it into effect, inasmuch as the patent described a practical and useful mode of carrying it into effect. It was said in the opinion, p. 721 [285]: “ Had the process been known and used before, and not been Tilghman's invention, he could not then have claimed anything more than the particu lar apparatus described in his patent; but being the inventor of the process, as we are satisfied was the fact, he was entitled to claim it in the manner he did." It was also held that in such a case, a person who subsequently discovers a new mode of carrying out the patented process is not entitled to use the process without the consent of the patentee. Reference was made in the opinion in that [278) case to the decision in Neilson v. Harford, 1 Web. Pat. Cas. 295, which related to Neilson's patent for the process of applying a blast of heated air to anthracite coal in a smelting furnace, by forcing such blast through a vessel situated between the blowing apparatus and the furnace, and heated to a red heat, the form of the heated vessel being stated by the patent to be immaterial. On this question this court said: "That a hot blast is better than a cold blast for smelting iron in a furnace, was the principle or scientific fact discovered by Neilson; and yet, being nothing but a principle, he could not have a patent for that. But having invented and practically exemplified a process |