and limited to the precise device, as described in the specifications and claims of the patent. In this contention, we agree. The patents are not for methods, but for particular mechanisms. As such, like all machine patents, they are entitled to a fair construction, and to one that will fully secure to the inventor the monopoly of his real invention. Any device or combination which accomplishes the same result, by substantially the same means, will be held an invasion of that monopoly. Care must be taken, however, in all cases, that we do not, by an uncalled for application of the doctrine of equivalents, practically give to the patentee a monopoly of the function of his mechanism. This, of course, we are not permitted to do, directly or indirectly. Mechanism for presenting glass articles at the glory hole of a furnace, and withdrawing them therefrom and rotating them thereat, while supported in a vertical position, was not new at the date of the application for either patent. The Lyon and Anderson patent, No. 263,051, August 22, 1882, and the Ripley patent, No. 336,666, February 23, 1886, both show and describe mechanism for presenting glass articles in a vertical position at a glory hole in the side of a furnace. The other element of both patents is, broadly stated, a reheating furnace. This, of course, was not new at the date mentioned, nor was the combination of these elements, in an apparatus for mechanically fire-finishing glassware, new at said date, for it is found in the patents just referred to. So also, the combination of a glass reheating and melting furnace, and a revolving table, or "merrygo-round," as it has been nicknamed, carrying a plurality of glass articles, is shown in the Schulze-Berge patent, No. 421,621, February 18, 1890. This patent, which antedated the Caldwell patent, No. 442,855, was one of the patents owned by complainants below, of which infringement was charged in this suit, but which was afterwards withdrawn from the consideration of the court. The furnace of the Caldwell patent, No. 442,855, is characterized by the same essential structural feature as that of the earlier Schulze-Berge patent, No. 411,131; that is, "the floor of the combustion chamber extends out laterally beyond the eye of the furnace, so as to form projecting ledges which are accessible from below." The segmental slot openings are formed in this laterally projecting floor, just as the glory holes were in the earlier patent. Though they are accessible from below, the combination of the patent provides for a revolving table, on which the glass articles are placed, and they enter the segmental slot through the side and bottom of the furnace instead of being pushed up from below through the floor. The end, however, accomplished by the device. of both patents, is the same; i. e. the glass articles are introduced into a combustion chamber, and subjected to its heat. In the Caldwell patent, as many as can occupy the segmental slot are brought into the chamber and subjected to its heat at the same time. What is called the "fire chamber" in the Caldwell patent, is called the "combustion chamber" in the Schulze-Berge patent. Both patents, therefore, are predicated upon a furnace having the necessary component parts of top, sides and floor, which inclose a fire or combustion chamber, filled with the gases of combustion, and in every part of which the melting heat is distributed. If patentable at all, then, the invention covered by these two patents must be confined to the particular device and mechanisms described and claimed, which, in each case, is a glass-heating furnace, so constructed as to admit a glory hole in its floor, accessible for vertically presented articles from below, in combination with mechanism that will present the articles to be fire-finished in the combustion chamber of the furnace, and withdraw them therefrom. Let us now see in what respect, if at all, appellants' structure can be claimed to have infringed upon the devices set forth in the two patents here under consideration. It will be best understood by a reference to complainants' exhibit drawing of defendants' apparatus. This apparatus differs essentially from the structure of each of the patents in suit, in not employing a furnace of any description whatever, its source of heat being a compound blowpipe burner, in the operation of which the work is done by the direct impingement of the flame upon the article to be treated. One of appellants' experts thus explains the construction and manner of operation of appellants' apparatus: "The defendants' apparatus clearly belongs to what I have designated as type (b) 'Blowpipe Flame Apparatus,' and briefly stated may be said to comprise a compound blowpipe to which has been added mechanism for rotating the ware so that the several articles to be treated may be, in turn, subjected to the direct action of the blowpipe flame. "Referring to the drawing showing defendants' structure, it will be seen that the nozzle of the blowpipe is marked I, and that this is supplied with air and gas through two separate pipes, marked I1, and that, as a means for causing the articles to be treated to be moved along until each in turn comes in contact with the blowpipe flame, there are provided a series of vertical rods C, cup-shaped at the top, and supported upon the outer rim of a horizontal disk which is carried by a vertical shaft A, and arranged to be driven by the belt wheel A7. "In order to insure the stoppage of each article in turn, directly in con tact with the flame, a latch or stop, y, is provided, designed to act against each rod in turn until such time as the operator releases it and permits the horizontal disk to move around until the next article of ware to be treated comes in contact with the flame. # 串 ** "In the drawing of defendants' device referred to, there is shown a hood or shield, D, open at the bottom and designed to cover the major portion of the blowpipe flame, in such a way as to protect the operator to some extent from the heat. This hood or shield, D, is arranged with a hole or opening, J, into or through which the compound burner, I, projects, and whereby the hood is prevented from interfering with the contact of the flame against the articles being treated. The ware could be fire-finished in the flame without the employment of the hood or shield, and the essential features of defendants' structure may, therefore, I think. be fairly said to be the compound blowpipe, and the mechanism by which the ware is caused to travel around so as to be treated by the flame in turn.” This segmental hood, covering a small arc of the circular path of the vertical cup-bearing rods, is, what it is called, a hood or shield, and is not the combustion chamber of a furnace, or any other part thereof. Although the mechanism for holding the glass articles revolves through it, it has no analogy, either in construction or function, to the combustion fire chamber of the patents in suit. It has no bottom or floor, through which or in which glory holes or segmental slots could be placed. As testified to by appellants' witnesses, it is generally composed of sheet iron or copper, sometimes lined with refractory material and sometimes not lined at all, and there is evidence tending to show that it can be dispensed with entirely, as the articles to be treated are not melted by the heat held within it, or under it, but by the direct impingement of the blowpipe flame. As a matter of fact, the appellees, the complainants below, are not consistent in their testimony, as adduced, nor in their argument, in calling the space covered by the hood, a combustion chamber or furnace. It is repeatedly alleged by appellees that the lateral hole, J, of appellants' apparatus, is its combustion chamber. In so alleging, they admit what we have just asserted to be true, that the hood, D, is not a combustion or fire chamber. One of the expert witnesses of appellees, complainants below, alleges that, as to patent No. 411,131, the lateral hole, J, of appellants' apparatus is the "combustion chamber," and as to patent No. 442,855, the hood, d, is the "fire chamber." But we have already pointed out, what we think very obvious, that the "combustion chamber" of patent No. 411,131, and the "fire chamber" of patent No. 442,855, are identical in construction and function. In the former patent, the glass article is thrust vertically from below through the floor of the combustion chamber, and withdrawn by reversing the movement. In the latter, a number of these articles, on the circumference of a revolving table or "merry-go-round," are swept through the segmental slot made in the side and floor of the fire chamber. In the apparatus described in both the patents in suit, a furnace, as generally understood, is essential, and the glass articles to be treated are thrust into, or carried through, the heat which pervades every part of the combustion chamber of the furnace. In defendants' apparatus, however, the articles to be treated are not subjected to effective heat, merely by being carried under the hood described. They must, in order to be fire-polished, be subjected to the direct impingement of the blowpipe flame. It is in testimony by the appellants, that the hood is used to protect the operator and take care of the spent combustion from the blowpipe, and it does not help the complainants below to show that, without the hood, the articles treated were so discolored as to require much labor and expense to brighten them by hand. If the function of the hood be to prevent this as well as to protect the operator, it is incidental merely, and does not invade any part of the peculiar function of the invention of the patents in suit. As we have already said, in view of the state of the art, there is no reason why the scope of the two patents we have been here considering should be enlarged beyond the ordinary signification of the terms used in the claims, in connection with the specific mechanisms described in the specifications of the patent. We fail to find in the apparatus of the appellants a furnace for heating glassware, with a combustion chamber provided with a laterally projecting floor, over which the gases of combustion pass, in which are glory holes accessible from below, as set forth in the first claim of patent No. 411,131. Nor do we find in this apparatus the essential features of claims 5 and 6 of patent No. 442,855. Defendants' apparatus does not present to us the glass reheating or melting furnace, with a fire chamber, having vertical wall openings and coincident bottom openings, extending through the fire chamber, and connecting two of said wall openings alone or in combination with vertical ware carrying supports, as set forth in claims 5 and 6. It would be a very refined and strained construction that would identify the hood, D, of appellants' apparatus, with the combustion or fire chamber of either of the patents referred to, and it seems to us to do violence to the natural meaning of terms to speak of the hole, J, through which the blowpipe burner emerges, as a glory hole; nor does the bottomless condition of the hood correspond in any way with the glory hole or segmental slot in the floor of the combustion chamber of either of the patents in suit. The hood, D, is entirely open on its lower side, as it is at both ends, and has neither a floor nor any equivalent therefor. Much less, as it seems to us, can the hole, J, through which the blowpipe burner passes in the alleged infringing apparatus, be said to correspond to the combustion chamber of either of the patents in suit. In conclusion, we do not think that the contention of the appellees, that either of the patents in suit is pioneer or primary in character. or entitled to be otherwise construed than according to the natural meaning of the terms used in its claims, in connection with the specifications, is warranted, or that, taken in connection with the state of the art, they are entitled to any broad range of equivalents. We are of opinion that defendants' structure does not contain the specific reheating furnace of either of the patents here discussed, or any reheating furnace whatever, the glassware being heated by the direct impingement of a blowpipe flame, and not by the heat generated by the gases of combustion, and stored up, in a combustion chamber. The functions of the hood or shield in defendants' apparatus are not equivalent to those of a reheating furnace, even if mere functional equivalents were admissible to establish infringement. In the view we have taken of the specific character of the mechanism which embodies the invention of the patents in suit and here for consideration, it is not necessary to consider more at length than we have done, the state of the art, as disclosed by the record; or the claims and specifications of the Schrader patent, under and pursuant to which it is alleged appellants' apparatus was constructed. We are of opinion that infringement of patents Nos. 411,131 and 442,855 has not been established, and that the bill as to these patents should be dismissed. The decree of the court below is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to said court, with directions to enter a decree in conformity with this opinion. (116 Fed. 196.) LEICESTER & CONTINENTAL MILLS CO. v. MACON KNITTING CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. May 12, 1902.) No. 15. PATENTS-CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT OF LICENSE-DEFENSE OF SUITS. Plaintiffs, who were owners of certain patents relating to knitting machines, entered into a contract with defendant corporation, which was a manufacturer of knitted goods, by which defendant was given an exclusive license to use the patented machines for certain purposes during the life of the patents. The contract contained a clause providing that, in the event of any suit or suits by or against either of the parties concerning the said patents or inventions, "the costs and expenses attending such suit or suits on behalf of any or all of the parties hereto shall be borne and paid equally by the respective parties; that is, one-half by the parties of the first part and one-half by the party of the second part." A suit was brought against defendant on the ground that the machines infringed another patent, and plaintiffs, by leave of court, intervened, and defended the same. Held, that neither the fact that the machines were held in the suit to be infringements, nor that defendant had refused to defend and the intervention, though acquiesced in, was voluntary, relieved it from its obligation, under the contract, to contribute one-half of the costs and expenses incurred by plaintiffs in defending the suit. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For opinion below, see 113 Fed. 844. Jos. De F. Junkin, for plaintiff in error. Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges. DALLAS, Circuit Judge. This was an action by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error upon a contract in writing, and the controlling question is as to the meaning of certain of its terms and their relation to the facts of this case. The contract is as follows: "This agreement, made and entered into this tenth day of February, A. D. 1896, by and between Joseph Bennor of the city of Macon, in the county of Bibb and state of Georgia, and the Macon Knitting Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the said state, and having its principal place of business in Macon, aforesaid, parties of the first part, and the Leicester Mills Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the |