
    JOHNSON CO. v. TIDEWATER STEEL WORKS.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    June 6, 1893.)
    1. Patents nor Inventions — Rolling Rails — Invention.
    Claim 1 of patent No. 300,030, issued March 29, 1.887, to Arthur J. Mon ham, for a method of rolling side-hearing girder rails, consisting in rolling down the metal forming the side tram in roils provided with passes, in one or more of which that portion of metal forming the offset or head of the rail is subjected to elongating action, and that portion only forming its side tram is subjected to displacing or dummy action, does not involve patentable invention, since it was old to roll girder rails with a dummy action on both the head side and the tram side, and it was old, in other forms of rails, to turn the whole lateral flow of metal to the tram side, and the changes necessary to accomplish this result in the rolls used for rolling girder rails were obvious to a shilled mechanic.
    
      2. Same — Limitation on Claim — Tnekingement.
    Even If the claim is valid It must he limited to a process in which all the rolls described in the specification are employed, and in the specific form shown and described, and is not infringed by a process of rolling in which the rolling of the rails, prior to their insertion into the dummy pass, is performed by rolls of a substantially different construction.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    In Equity. Suit "by the .Johnson Company to enjoin the Tidewater Steel Works from infringing letters patent ‘No. 360,036, granted March 29, 1887, to Arthur J. Moxhain for a method of, and rolls for, rolling side-hearing girder rails. In the court below the bill was dismissed by Acheson, circuit judge. For a full statement of the case, see 50 Fed. Rep. 90, for his opinion, which is here adopted by the circuit court of appeals.
    Affirmed.
    G-eorge J. Harding- and George Harding, for appellant.
    William A. Redding, (Theodore P. Matthews, on the brief,) for appellee.
    Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges.
   BUTLER, District Judge.

A careful examination of the assignments of eiTor has convinced us that the decree of the circuit court -should be affirmed; and we are satisfied to rest this conclusion on the reasons slated in the opinion filed by that court. To restate or enlarge upon them would be a waste of time and labor.  