Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.

ie li iiaia Si tas icine

‘

in the meres Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1941.

Tk Cle oe

THE WILLIAMS MANU FACTURING COMPANY,

ees Petitioner, ;

VS.

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION: ae es

so tee | eee:

a . sé

.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI: |

To the —— Circuit Court of Appeals

_ For the Sixth Circuit, and ep

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION.

re LLL TE a

*

YH. A. Toutmiy, Jr.,

Mutual: Home Building; /

- Dayton, Ohio, ae

| | Attorney for Petitioner, |

Janes B. O’Don NELL:

uA. TovLMIN, | as coe nn Se é

H. A, =, OULMIN, J Re ay Pi

Rowax.A. GREER,: ve : SEA Lae

Of t Counsel

_

| INDEX.

PETITION FOR, WRIT OF CERTIORARI. ......0.000.205

Summary and Short Statement. piseeeaae ce ks Sone .

_ The Decision: of the District Court. cheers pela

The Decision of tlie Court of Appeals. ia cues pee

Reasons Relied Upon for the Allowance of: the Writ!

Extension of Expired } Monopoly. Reisinger eyees

‘Aggregation: Extensioy ‘of Monopoly. Pay sks

_ Commercial Success - of Prior Art: ‘Unnecessary: for

. Anticipat OP picccouers ea Puree eda ee ee

Diversity of Opinion Below: -No Other Opportunity =

to Present ‘the Case.............-- seeder es wee |

~ Public Importance een prahays Pere’ 7 hare trees eta

y pet tity : ° ’

Prayer ......: Sea eek eek Ay ae aes pete tee beet ences

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CER.

WIGRARE. ... /0.3....533: ee. ope Coe Meee yaa

- The Opinions of the Courts Below. we ee neee ae obese

Jurisdiction ...:..... Ce eis eae ae

Statement of the Case.:..\,... RE SURWENTA cos otcce cess

Specification of Errors..... GUE arr Ohe Ss Sate Hoe

The Issue Be er dacs ae : eae

Summary of the Argument. : jekanec were 5d Saar

ae men wey Nevers: eater ee PORE |

Point I? The Mealy adtate 4 are ‘substantially

identical except for three ee adjustments,

_themselv We Oe Sh SN AGE oie bo we evs ee shoes

; Point IT. Aggvegation: ‘Another Form of an ke

. _ tempt to Repatent Expired Old Combinations. .

Point ITT. Commercial Success § is not Essential to

Anticipation by a Prior WIE ied ce nea Fs oe

~ Point IV. ° Div ersity | of Opinion een “Sput pee

Point V.- Public Importance |

. « .

oe O-8 2 & 6.0 6 < 48 oS & 2 Geet9 See

— : ie \ 3

. .

Y

: Authorities Cited. 2

eae Publi ds The. v. American T ri- Brgok ;

| Corp.,:: ye yy Sener aees Cris +2429, 22,24

oF Ansaldo v, Rheinstrom, 294 U.S. 494. arate. star. |

Bassick v. Hollingshead, 298 U, ‘8. 415. se peace: ‘e

RAPS ain RS Mier Ie eB 6, | 21, 24, %

Carbice é. American Patents, 983 U.S. 27.. see weleeses 9, 25

Cities Service v. Dunlap, 308 U. S. we: .... &S 10, 19, 24. 7

DeForest Radio v. General Electric, 283 U.S. 664. .9, 29, 25

” Grant v. Walter, 148 U. Oar sit. ee 22

Grinnell v- Johnson Co. . 247 U. B. 426, 2.556, 1,

Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27 Geena: C :

Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber, 302 U. S. 458... s bi, ‘ a ved 9, 25

Livicolw v. Stew art ies € 'orp., 303 Us. Be OOO Chace ee |

Tee ots i oer sor eae 5, 9,10, 13,16,25

Mackay Radio & Lelpgraph on v.oRadio Comp: 306 : |

PR. Aen peg er eee reer ei Pee ee 9, 24

Mechanics v. Culhane,. 299 U. S.. 51, it ee 2. ss Saeed)

Bathe bi eg Publix Gorp. v. American Tri- Pros Corp. :

294 U. Mo 806... ccs. adck a waco Selene rae SLA 22, 24

Schriber Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305, U: S.

' MT a pe bho er os tc hea eae meee ae wkeee Sous es 9, 24

Smith v. Hall, 301-U. 8. 2161.0... sseeceeceee03 ++ 612

Smith v. James, 301 U.S. 21 Ate re : Re ere 11, 22, 8

‘Spevialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton, 174 U.s a Rr e tara ge

Textile,Machine W orks Ve Louis Hirsch. Téxtile Ma- °-

chines, Inc., 302 U. S§. 490..... cin bine REA ey 22

U.S. v. Constantine, 296 ug 287. : menoees es TELS 24

W. 8. C."A., Title 28, Sed 347 ean Pe igs SEN Gees ester es a

U.S: ¢. A, Title 35; See. Era ye ocean 29

ea:

hn the besten Court af the United States.

ee OCTOBER = 1941. | eS

: THE WILLIAMS: se ects Laisa cheap

Petitioner, !

VS. :

Saya a MACHINERY CORPORATION,

; : Respondent. :

es

Bs

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ae To the United States ‘Circuit Court of Appeals.

For the Sixth cabal : :

*

ae

To the Honorable the Chief fc of t the’ a

United States, and the Associate Justices

of the S upreme Court.of the United States:

Your petitioner, The Williams Manufacturing ‘Com-

pany, respectfully prays for a writ of certiorari to the

Cireuit Court of Appeals. for the Sixth Circuit to review |

_ the. judgment of that court entered « on June 25, 1941.

ge SUMMARY AND SHORT STATEMENT.

‘The issue here is the extent of the right to repatent an.

expired monopoly affecting the entire shoe industry.

. Petitionér was defendant. in the District Court, where

the respondent prevailed on both patents in suit; the Dis-

trict Court holding the two patents in, suit valid and in-

fringed.” The €ircuit Court of Appeals, for the Sixth Circuit -

reversed the District Court, in part,’ holding the McFeely

patent No. 1 558,787, valid and infringed and the Hoyt pat-

ent No. 1,508,394, invalid. Judge KJwood Hamilton of that’

Court dissented. ‘The primar? issue in both courts was the |

., a

V4 2 Ce

‘ catenin of monopoly by the respondent, | the United Shoe

‘Machinery Corporation, in repatenting old expired combi-

- nations of its expired patents in new patents in which ad-

- justments, 6ld per:se inthe art, were substituted in the old ;

combination and were reclaimed in broad combinations with

the old basic machine covered by respondent’ Ss OW ™m expir ed

patents. | ! :

This extension of monopoly was s effected i in this manner. |

_ Phe -Bill of Complaint was originally founded upon ‘tree

_ patents: Pym patent No. 1,368,968, of. Febr uary. 15; 1921,

expiring February 15, 1938, covering bed lasters without

the superimposed automatic tackers; the second’ McFeely |

patent No. 1,558 137, granted. October 27, 1925, expiring

October 27, 1942, covering bed lasters i in sieiiastion with |

~ automatic ees: and Hoyt patent No. 1,508,394, granted ,

September 16, 1924, expiring September 16, 1941, for an-

other improved form Sia bed laster and automat ic.

tackers. Respondent withdrew its suit on the ew pi ired Pym

io patenit before trial. .

The second McFvely patent in suit’ wa's abandoned by.

its owner, the United Shoe Machinery Corporation, in the’

Patent Office on the 1: 5th day of July, 1921,-and renewed on

the 24th day of May, 1922. Hit had not been.so abandoned,

it would have issued and now be. expired. . °

The pattern for the extension of monopoly hy over:

lapping patents on heel seat’ lasting machines of the he-

spondent, is “shown in the following diagram of - dates ot

issue and expiration of patents:

1915. 1921 1924. 1925 1932 1938 1941 1942

4 ee ayes & ee N

Pym || iS see Ge

f ee aa mies: & Hoyt

a a

First MeFeely

. “Becond McFeely

g 7 <3

1 The first McFeely patent No. 1,129 881 is the primary’ an-

ticipatory reference whose expired monopoly. is repatented by the

second,McFeely: patent No. | 1,558,737 in suit.

3

‘The - United Shoe Machinery Corporation, respondent, |

Ha, owned the principal prior patent, the first McFeely patent.

No. 1,129,881, issued’ March 2, -1915, expiring March 2,

1932. This ‘paten* eovered the complete combination of a ~

bed’ laster and automatic tackers for the heel seat lasting

3 : of shoes. It, was built by’ the United Shoe Machinery Cor-

poration and placed_in the plant of the Victor Shoe Com-

pany, where it-operated under commercial conditions suc-

cessfully, ‘lasting shoes of various sizes, and was acclaimed

¥efore the United States Patent Office, by affidavit from. .

the employees of. the United Shoe Machinery Corporation,

as a pioneer advance, successful commercially, ‘and -the

first McFeely ‘patent was granted accordingly. (R. Vol. ™

pp. 471-6, Def: Exh. H- 2.) !

In the District Court the Respondent, United Shoe

+ Maeninery Cor poration, took.the position that the machine

- of the first MeFeely patent had never been built and was.

not a commercial machine. (R. Vol. 1, p. 396.) . This proof;

_ Was promptly challenged by the petitioner who. produced, |

before the decision of the District Court and before argu-

~ ment, the certified:copy of the flew ‘rapper of the first Mc-.

Feely’ patent, containing affidavits of respondent’s em- |

7 ployces, filed in the United States Patent Office, that the

_ machine of the first. McFeely patent had been successfully

- and commercially used on various:sizes of shoes. (Opinion ~

of Court of Appeals, R. 509-10, .Vol. 1.) ‘The District Court

rejected this evidence as being. offered too late,-and found

that the McFeely patent in suit was the first commercially

- suecessful heel seat lasting machine. (R. Vol. 1, pp. 478-9.)

The Cireuit: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cireuit dis-

approved this course of the District Court and gave this

-evidence consideration, saying: ‘‘Although the machine

successfully lasted shoes of specific ‘sizeggpit proved in-

capable of. operafing satisfactorily upon ‘a range of sizes

. large enough to adapt it for commercial], operation in the

7 ordinary shoe factory. ” (> ma0, Vol. ie

. ; {

ee eee A

U.. Hidepoadent has placed 1200 machines with shoe manv-

facturers. The » issue of the-control by a patent of these

~ expensive and coniplicated: machines, which constitutes -one

of the major expenses of making shoes, is. of great public - *

interest. (R. Vol. 1, p. 124, Ax 6; Ib. 399; Ib. 483.) |

The differences claisfed by’ respondent as to the second

McFeely patent over: ‘the first to enable tlfe oe TMmachine

2.

to operate.on a greater range of sizes are: e.

(a), ‘Means. for preliniinary adjustment of ~the

"wipers. or tackers to accommodate a greater variety

» ° of sizes of shoes. (Old in prior art patents, R..Vol. 2,

pe. 114, 122,134, 140, 222, 238, 240.) /

(b) Shding heel band adjustment for the in and .

-out movement. of the shoe. (Old -in prior art patents,

see 3 Vol. 2, ‘pp. 114, 122, 134, 172, 384, 440.)

(e) Means for adjusting tte amount. of vértical :

- - movement of the hold-down fot the adjustment of the

height of the shoe in the machine. (Old in prior art.

‘patents, R. Vol... 2, pp- 232, 440.) / :

. These three adjustments. are old per se in ‘this art

and have been used-in numerous heel U seat lasting mae ‘hines

shown i in the above ss obs patents

“The Decision of the District Court.

The ‘District Court held hath . patents. valid and, in-.

afringed, and that the improvements . and adjustments ot

the second McFeely, included;in the claims to the broad

combinations, entitled respondent <to repatent the. entire

combination of bed laster and autgmatie tacker's, hecatse

these improvments- adjustments enabled the second Met'eely

' patent to operate-upon a w ider range of sizes of shoes and, ;

therefore, made the second. McFeely construction with theo

threedjustments a more commercially successful _Jnachine.

- 483, Vol. |

v

- 2

," e

‘

sae ee 5

| rh Decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Cireuit Court of Appeals followed the dueision of |

- the. District Court in sustaining the second. McFeely patent

as valid and infringed. It failed to follow the doctrine on

exténsion of monopoly as laid down by this Court in Bassick

| r. Hollingshead, 298 U. S. 415, and Lincoln v.: Stewart

i arner, 303 U. S. 545. °It reversed the Distr ict Court as ~

to the Hoyt patent. Judge Elwood Hamilton of the Circuit -

Courfof Appeals dissented without a dissenting’ opinion.

- REASONS RELIED UPON FOR THE -

ALLOWANCE OF THE. WRIT.

- Petitioner bélieves | that writ of certiorari should be

granted in this case for the following reasons and accord-

ingly the diecretionary power of this Court 1 is invoked :

| Extension of Expired Monopoly.

1. That the’ Cireuit Court of’ Appeals for the ’

Sixth Cireuit, in holding the second MeFeely patent

No. 1 ,08,737,:valid over the prior invention and pat-

ent of McFeely No. 1,129,881, has rendered a decision

in conflict with the principles #f the decisions of this

Court in Bassick v. Hollingshead, ‘298 U. S. 415 and

Lincoln &. Stewart Warner, 303 U. S. 545, prohibiting

~ the extension of monopoly of an expired patent by the

substitution of mechanical details, already old in the .

art, in‘a second patent in an identical basic mechanism

as in the first expired.patent;——a mere substitution or

improvement of parts’ in an old combination, . The —

failure to: follow established rules of this Court is

ground for certiorari. Cities Service v. Dunlap, 308

U. S. 208, wav cat |

"Aggregation: Extonsios of Monopoly.

2..That the Circuit. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit in upholding the validity of McFeely |

‘patent No. 1,558,737, which merély aggregates old ad-

justing features with: on old combination, has. rendered

a decision in conflict with* the principles applied in -

~ such cases as Grinnell-v. Johnson Co., 247 U.S. 426..

.

3

Commercial Success of Prior Art cn :

Unnecessary for Anticipation.

3. That the Circuit Court of ponern for the

Sixth Circuit in upholding the validity of McFéely -

patent No. 1,558,737 has rendered a decision in €ontlict

with the decision of this Court and the principles

therein as applied in such cases as Smith v. James and

Smith v. Hall, 301 U.S. 216, to the effect that a prior

machine constitutes anticipation, even though’ it is

commercially unsuccessful and is incapable of operat-

ing to the fullest range of capacity to adapt it for com-

mercial. operation. The decision of-the-Court' 6f Ap-

yeals herein is in conflict with the principles announced

in the decision of this Nee in Smith v. James, supra,

p

in which the Hastings prior use was held to anticipate

the Smith patent notwithstanding the -Hastings prior

use did not meet with commercial success. ,

Diversity of uliion Below: No Other . ca =

Opportunity to Present the Case. 2

4. That the McFcely patent in suit will expire

‘in October, 1942, and there ds no opportunity of secur-

ing a_ diversity of. opinion with other Circuits, but -

there is a diversity of Opinion in the United States.

Civeuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, his

'_. Honor, Judge Elwood Hamilton, having dissented

from the majority opinion.

: ‘ : °

. s . e —_ = ae 2

‘“T,

-)

Public Importance.

_.d.. That. this case involv es the payment of royal-

7 tits or rentals to. United Shoe Machinery Corporation -

‘by shoe manufacturers on more’ than 1200 machines

and is, therefore, one of great public importance to the

public and hundreds of shoe manufacturers tpon whom °

the, respondent levies tribute through roy alties. or.

rentals. The principle of:- extension of monopoly by the.

metiod “employed i in drafting these ‘patents, if not cor-

rected, will extend indefinitely the monopoly of. pat-_:

ents of this: class over the shoe industry.

*

&

: PRAYER. eon

Wher efore, vourpetitioner respectfully prays that

4 artit of certiorari be issued to the Cireuit Court of Appeals |’

f for the Sixth Cireuit to the end that this cause may be re-

viewed and determined by this Cotrt in accordance with

/ ‘the principles of law heretofore announced by it; that the .

decree of the Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-

cuit be reversed as to the finding of validity of McFeely pat-

ent No. 1,558,737 of October 27, 1925; and that the peti--

tioner be granted such other and further relief as may be

- proper, > | : ‘ a

| . Tue Witiiams. Maytracrurine Company,. *

By H. A..Tovutmin, Jr., . ae

Attorney for Petitioner.

JAMES B. O’DonnELL, tor

cA RR os peers

H. A. Tourn, JR, ;

Row AN A. GREER, ©

Of Counsel.

a Be

6

sibcdeam

all

Pj

»

% .

y

notes

-

.

>

.

.

o

¢.

-

“a

—_—

«

.

.

.

‘

a oa

.

e-

| meee, 2 a |

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

_ FOR WRIT OK CERTIORARI.

: THE OPINIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW.

The opinion of the District Court is, found on pages

477 to 485 Vol. 1 of the record. The opinion. af the —

Court of Appeals (Circuit Judges Simons, Hamilton-and

Martin, Judge Simons writing and Judge Hamilton), dis-

- senting) appears.at pages ‘502 to 513, Vol. 1, of the record.

_. This opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth:

~ Cireuit is not yet reported. 3

0

{ee = JURISDICTION.

. The decree of the Pireuit Court of Appeals was en-

tered June 25, 1941 (R. 501, Vol: 1) and the opinion was

filed June 27, 1941 (Ib. 502). The statute giving jurisdic- ©

tion is 240-A of the Judicial Code 8’ U. S. Code, See. 347).

The judgment was rendered if a suit in. equity brought —

“under the patent statutes to d perigine the validity: of Let-

ters Patent of i invention. : :

_ The cases believed to sustain jur badiclien are: &

' Cities Service v. Dunlap, 308 U. 8. 208 ; 3

Schriber Co. wv. Cleveland Trust, 305 U.S. 47 ;

_ Mackay Radio & ae Co. v. Radio Corp. (306 -

hi eee A

‘Rassicd v. Hollingshead, 298 U. S. 415;

Lincoln v. Stewart Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545;

Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber, 302 U. 8. 458; ae

Altoona Publix v. American TriErgon, 294 U. S.

477; : |

Carbice v. ae rican Patents, 283 U.S. 27;

De Forest Radio v. General Electric, 283 U..S. 664.

.

es - 10 tee

: : STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ‘he

The foregoing ‘petition.contains a summary of the ma-

terial facts necessary to an understanding of the reasons

relied upon for the allowance of the writ as well as the

_ statement of the questions involved i in the case. |

,

_. . , SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS. _—_... *

The specification of errors herein relied upon are those

reasons set forth in tl® petition as grounds for its allow-

ance. . | Ca ear! |

Q ers

aon. “THE ISSUE.

The primary issue is extension of monopoly by-repat-

‘enting an old combination to redoininate’ a trade for

another seventeen years, contrary to the principles an-

nounced by this Court, in Bassick v. Hollingshead, 298 U.S.

415, and Lincéln v. Stewart Warner r Corp., 303 U. S. 545. , ;

7)

.

: SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. :

’ The argument is summarized in the “Reasons Relied -

Upon For The Allowance of The W rit”? found in the peti-

tion. Briefly the’ argument 1 is: ade.

The’ decision of ‘the Court. of Appeals herein

wee with the decisions of this Court in Bassick ¢.

_Hollingshead, 298 U. 8S. 415 and Lineoln. v- Stewart -

Warner, 303 U. S. 545. The Court of Appeals <de- .

clined to-apply the principle agnounced’ by this Court

in these cases to the effect that an old. combination

cannot be repatented.by improving elements of the old

combination. Respondent herein mérely made ad-

justable certain parts of the old combination, which in —

no way affects the operation, of the old combination.

The adjustmgats are made before the old combination

operates and o.tiy when a different size shoe is to be

lasted, which is not often. Such conflict is ground for

granting certiorari. Cities Service v. Dunlap, 308 U.S.

208.

ae rT | } : | a

et 2 The decision of ‘the Court of Appeals is con-

trary to this Court’s decision in-Grimell v. Johnson,

-- 247 U.S. 426, against aggregating old aes fea-

’. tures with an old combination. s

3. The decision of the Court of dials in sus- |

: taining the second MeFeely- patent’ on the ground of

: commercial suecess is contrary to the decisions: of this

Court in Smith v. James and-.Smith.v. Hall, 301 ‘U. S.

216 tothe effect that a prior machine is an anticipation.

_-even though it is not commereially successinl. See also

HildPeth v. Mastoras, 257 U. S. 27, 34.

4. The: McFeely | patent will expire in October, 2

1942 and there is no opportunity of secur ring a diversity

of opinion in- other “Circuits. There is diversity . of -

-opinion among the Judges-of the Court of Appeals in

this case, because Judge Elwood Hamilton dissented.

eo

5. There is great public importance in this case

because Respondént has licensed ‘1200 of its machines.

_ This is of great public importance because the tribute

levied upon the manufacturers by Respondent is passed

on to the large number. of wie is i of shoes. “~

ae

ARGUMENT.

POINT I.

The McFeely patents are substantially identical except

for three improved adjustments, themselves old in this art:

‘the second McFeely patent in suit No. ‘1,558,737 has re- —

patented an old combination set forth and claimed in the

irst MeFeely, patent No. 1,129,881 and other patents: of

ident.

"The two McFeely patents, the ‘expired patent No:

1129 881 and the McFeely patent in suit No. 1,558,737, as

“will be seen from an examination .of thir drawings and.

‘pecifications, are substantially identical in construction, ©

operation and result. (R. Vo 1. 2, 266, 2 a) =e second Me-

Feely patent says : : 3 : |

“This invention relates to lasting machines far use |

in the manufacture of boots and shoes, and is herein.

illustrated in its applr@ation to a machine for lasting ~

“

12

the heel: baa or the heel seats, of shoes, tis drawings

showing a machine of the s > general: type as that ~

illustrated in United States’ Letters Patent No.

1,129,881 granted upon my application on- March 2,

1915, in which type.of machine it is one of the Objects

, of the invention to effect moticariebtranstanagt: ”? (p: 1, ll.

12. 3.3: .<. | ,

' The only differences claimed by’ ronment are the ‘addi.

tions in the second McFeely patent to the first McFeely

patent to make’ (a) the wipérs or tackers, (b) the heel.’

band, and (¢) the hold-down adjustable: so.as to give the

second McFeely patent greater Aexibility in. lasting a

ereatervaricty of sizes of shoes. “UR. 420, ‘Finding | 29, Ib.

» 481, Ib. d11-12 ey hes Ses .

. The Disttict Court, whose findings wer

“5

eee affiemed by’

2 the Circuit. Court of Appeals, Held: 4 ave sate i :

sc*#'* * that while the. McFeely patent. in suit No.

1,508,737, «embraces many elenients of the McFeely

patent-No. 1,129,881, the earlier McFeely patent lacked,

so far as it relates to Claims 6 and 85, certain elements

which prev ented it from being: conamercially success- °

ful; that is to say, among others, it would not per mit of

a successful operation upon a rangé of shoe sizes; the

operation of the tackers and wipers could not be con-

trolled with accuracy, or in other words, adjusted as

are the tackers and wipers in the-machine covered by

the patent in sit; and also, immediately before the

_ tacking movement the Wipers would be retracted partly

- to permit of the tacking and in so doing ‘have a tendency ,

ito pull the upper: from the insole, which would tend -

Yn some instances to and in many operations did make :

0 an imperfect job, if not damage-the shoe.. This was

overcome in the machine covered by the patent in suit

by the wipers moving in toward the shoe, holding. the

upper in place rather | than pulling the upper away trem

é the last, prior. to the tacking as in the earlier McFeely

patent.’’-(R. Vol. 1, p. 4832)

The Court of Appeals said as is the first MeFeely pat-

ent: ‘Although the machine successfully lasted. shoes ot

.

| i ae

specific sizes, it proved incapable of operating satistactorily

upon a range of sizes large ‘enough to adapt it for com-

mercial’ operation in the ordinary ahve faetory.’’ (R. 510,

ie eer ne . )

The additions comprised, therefore,. these three ad-

machine. If they were novel, they. should have: been pat-

‘ented per. se. The additions thémselves, as hereinafter

pointed out, were old in this art, used in similar combina-

tions for heel-seat lasting, and’ were - ‘substitutions within |

~ the skill of the art open to the publie - and no longer

‘ ‘susceptible to exclusive monopoly by this respondent,

whose patents thereon. had sin UB. V. ol. 2; PP. 280,

40.) | | : 2

A patentee - cannot, by improving elements of an “old

combination, whose construction: and operation is. Other-

wise: unchanged, in‘effect. repatent the old combination for

_ another seventeen years by reclgiming it with the improved

elements substituted for the. old elements or in improve-

_- ment thereof Bassick v. Hollingshead, 298 U. 8. 415 and--

‘Lincoln v. Stewart Warner Corp, 303 U.S. 545.

: The McFeely patents relate to an automatic heel seat ©

lasting machine for the purpose of. ‘‘heel seat lasting,”

Le., the turning over of leather of a shoe upper-on the

bottom of the insole and the tacking of the leather against

such insole before the application of the heel to the shoe,

_ Heel seat lastin&is an accomplishment practiced by auto-

- Inatie and semi-automatic machinery in this art of more

‘than sixty ‘years. (Copeland 244, 774, ete., R. 114; Vol. 2.),

'y The result of heel seat lasting of shoes of different sizes was.

accomplished by first’ MceFeely patent No. 1,129,881, the

' Court of Appeals below finding that it ‘‘suecessfully lasted

- shoes of specific sizes.’’ (R. 510, Vol. 1.).

According . to respondent’s claim as. ‘ the difference

‘between the first McFeely and the second M@Feely patents, —

there, are three ~ found in the second McFeely

f .

f

fread!

| Y

justments to make the second McFeely a more commercial if

; | Me ae |

not found in the first McFeely. ‘The result’of these adjust-

~ ments was to make it possible to handle a greater number

of different .sizés and shapes of shoes,.according to re-_

spondent’s-ctaim. These adjustments were first that: of the

heel band by which it w as connected positively for fore and

v. aft movement. This two-way, in an ‘out adjustment per se.

in the second patent, was substituted far adjustable rubber

. band supports that. moved the heel band in. one direction |

only in the first McFeely: patent. (Opinion of Cireuit Court .

of Appeals, R. 511, Vol. 1.) ~The tw o-way adjustment of a

‘ heel. band in the first McFeely was an old characteristic

.in the art as showr-in the patents to Copeland, No. 244,714;

Lombard, No. 542,445; Eaton, No. 596,323; Brock,” No.

601,935; Plant, No. 958,280; Brock, No. 1,118,616; Pym, ~

No. 1,368,968 and Keyes, No. 1 ,023,854, see Figure 10.. {n

Vol. 2, pp. 114, 122, , 134, 140, 222, 238, 440.)

The second adjustment was a predetermined one for

* the wipers to initially position them to accommodate dif-

: fertnt sizes of shoes. (Opinion of Cireuit Court of Ap-

peals, R. 511, Vol1.) This also was an adjustmeft common

in this art in such patents as Pym, No. 1,368,968 ; Copeland, -

. No. 244,714; Lombard, No. 524,445; Eaton, No. 596,323;

* Brock, No. 1,118,616 and Snow, No. 946, 708. (i. Vol. | 2, -

pp, 440, 114, 122, 134, 284,172.)

The third adjustment (opinion of Cireuit Court. of

Appeals, R. 511, Vol. 1), was the vertical movement of the.

hold-down, which also was, per se, old in respondent’s ex-

pired Py ™m patent No, 1,368,968, formerly in this suit, and»

Keyes, No. 1 023,854. (R. Vol. 2, pp. 232, 440.)..

In the present case the Court of Appeals of the Sixth —

Circuit found that ee pgcnesdaasels produced a new result,

“meaning apparently, ‘an improved’’ result, because, - of

course, the result of hee} seat lasting was a very old one

and: had been for the last, sixty years. Copeland, No.

244,714 and subsequent patents (R. Vol. 2, p. 114.)

B

° : Po ) Y 10

The Court of Appeals below. caiai

‘‘TIt is true that many of the tisbuive of the claims

are old find that an organization, including wipers and

tackers, Was shown in somewhat primitive form in

Copeland, It is also true that adjustability of elements,

though not in the form shown in the first McFeely pat-

_ent,.is added by the patent in suit to the McFeely type

laster, and that mere adjustability by common mechani-

_¢al expedients may not, of itself, denote the presence

of the quality of invention and merit the issue of a

_ patent.” (R. 511, Vol. 1.) © :

The adjustable features in. the second McFeely do not

in any way modify the lasting operation. The adjustments

are made by hand’ before. the lasting operation starts. (R.

Vol. 1, :p..47, A. 3, Ib. 409-10, Ib. 69, A. 17, Ib. 368, XAt

312-315, Ib. 369, XA. 319.) - The.result of the lasting épera-_ :

tion is exactly the same as in the first expired McFeely

patent and m other prior art patents. (R. mah Vol. 2 2, lines

19-23, p. 3, patent 1,558,737; Ree, 129, Vol. 2, XA. 1-15;

- Tb, 298-9; Ib. 300-5; Ib. 314-16; Ib. 318-321; Ib. 362-3, XA. —

263-274; Ib. 394-5; Ib. 420°) |

Petitioner’s position is that the claims of the second

’ MeFeeley patent. go to the old combinatign,.which is ex-

' qired, and include these adjustments. as a part of the old

combination in substitution for other adjusting mechanism

in the first McFeely patent, thereby in effect repatenting the

“old combination - ‘by reclaiming it with the improved ele- >

ments substituted for the old elements, as for instance, sub-

stituting the tgvo-way adjusting mechanism for the heel

“band | in the first McFeely patent for its heel band w ith the

rubber cord, supports.

The evil of the system of granting. and sustaining. pat-

ents for a repatented combination from which there has

been removed a more or less uneconomical ‘element’ and .

substituting an old element which is more. effective, permits

an endless extension.of monopoly, and’a permutation of

the ‘possible combinations so that the’ patents secured are -

16

| endless 4 in number and never iy in scope. Respond- :

ent in the case of the Hoyt patent in suit was held guilty of = :

such extension. of monopoly: by the Circuit Court of Appeals

“herein. "(R. 512-13, Vol. 1.) This practice enables an ener-

gétic Patent Department of a great corporation like that: of

respondent, through the sheer mass of such patents so se-

cured by repatenting old monopolies, to make it impossible

for any manufacturer of sltoes to do other than to comply

_ by rental of its machines and thereby pay tribute t to such

patents without end to the tribute. ‘

In Bassick v. H ollingshead, 298 U.S. 415, this 5 Court

held that an old combination could not be repatented by im-.

proving one.or more of the old ie ig Court said:

. “It-is plain that Gullborg invent :

of two of the. mechanical elements of an old combina-,

tion consisting of grease pump, hose, hose-coupler, and

a°grease cup or pin fitting. First, he contrived an im-

“proved: pin fitting. This he patented as such (No.

1,307,733.) Secondly, he invented an improved form |

of coupler to be attached to the end of the hose leading

from the pump to the fitting. Instead of patenting this,

as he did the pin fitting,,he claimed a combination: -

of pump, hose-coupler, and pin ‘fitting, and embodied

. in the combination his improved form of coupler... (No.

1,307,734, the patent in suit; claims 1-6, 8 and 10.) ‘ He

further claimed the combination between his patented

tting ana any form of grease gun whether that .

_ ¢e¥med in his’patent.or unpatented. and old in the art. .

(Ciaims 14 and’ 15.) « The question then is whether,

by this method, thé patentee, by improving one element

of an old combination whose: construction and opera-.

tion is otherwise unchanged, may, in effect, repatent.the

old. combination by reclaiming i with the improved

element substituted for the old element. That this can-

not ‘be done is shown by numerous eases in this and

other federal courts.‘’’ ( pp: ¢24- 12%.) )

| The Court of Appeals was reversed. ,

In Lincoln v. Stewart W arner, 303 U. S. 545, ‘iia is bare

also held the patent invalid because the improvement was

- In one part of an old combination. |

improvements _..

@¢

17.

_«* * * The invention, if any, which Butler made

- was an improvement in what he styles in his specifica-

. tions the ‘chuck’ and in-his claim a ‘coupling member.’

It is not denied ‘that multi-jawed chucks had been used

in industry and.as couplers in lubricating apparatus.

Butler may have devised a patentable improv ement

in such a chuck i in the respect that the multiple jaws

in his device are closed over the nipple by the pressure,

of the grease, but we think he did-no more than this.

As we said of Gullborg in.the Rogers case, having hit

upon this improvement he did not patent it as such

but attempted to claim it in combination with other

old elements which performed no new function in his -

claimed combination. The patent is therefore void as

claiming more than the applicant invented’ The mere

aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which,

im the aggregation, “perform. or produce no‘new or dif-

ferent function or operation than that theretofore per-

formed or produced by them, is not patentable. inven-

tion.’ And the improvement of'one part of an old com- .,

bination gives no right to claim:that improvement in

combmation with other old parts which perform no new

function in the combination. ' 8’? (pp. 549, 550. .<

' The C rt further said: pons ie

ca function of. a pump has always heen-

to force a. fluid. or-a grease through a conduit. The

fact that this function“of the pump is utilized in But-

ler’s improved form of coupler not only to convey the

‘lubricarit to. the bearing but ta operate the jaws of

the chuck does not alter the: function of the pump.

the invention, if any, lies in the improv ement in the

coupling -devi ice. alone. ” (p. 551.)

‘‘We conclude that Butler’s effort, by the use ofa

~ combination claim, to extend the monopoly of his in-

vention of an’ improved form of chuck or coupler to

old parts or elementsehaving no new function when |

' operated in connection with the coupler renders the

* Claim void.’’ (p. 552.) :

The heel: seat laster in the second MeFeely: patent

operates exactly the same as the heel seat laster in the

first MeFeely heel seat laster. The addition of the ad-—

18 |

justable features, taken from the old art, does not in any

way affect the old heel’ seat lasting mechanism of the first

McFeely patent. The result obtained by both is the same.

The adjustments are made solely for.the purpose of. ac-- .

commodating different sizes of shoes and are used only

when. a. different size ‘shoe*is to be lasted. oat

McFeely’s effort in his second: patent, by the use of

a combination claim, to'extend the monopoly: of his in-

vention of an improved form of adjustment (taken from.

the prior art) to old parts or elements (the first McFeely

patent) having no new function when operated in covfee-

tion with the coupler renders the claims void. |

‘The Court: of “Appeals erred in not recognizing that

the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in

the ‘“‘Bassick’’ and the ‘‘Etncoln’’ cases, supra; and in

not holding the claims inv alid because they cover an ald

combination. with adjustments added which~do not oper-

ate when the heel seat lasting operation is effected, and

which operate only when the size of the shoes is to be

changed and before any different sized. shoe is lasted.

7 sapplied the principles laid down by -this Court.

—_——as evidenced by the follow ing statement from its opinion

-(R; 511, Vol.1);5- 7%. ,

‘*There is here much more than mere improverent

in quality or quantity of product due to the independ-

ent functioning of an improved element, as:in Bassick

_v, Hollingshead, 298 U. S. 415, or-Kodel Elec. Co, tv.

Warren Clock Ca., 62 Wed. (2d). 692 (C. C. A. 6).”

We submit that the doctrine against repatenting au

old combination by substituting old elements or. even add-

ing old. elements, is not limited to the conditions just

specified in the above quotation. This Court’s decision

prohibits remonopolizing that. which ‘has already been

dedicated to the public ‘by expiration of a prior patent,

whether the latter effort to repatent involves a: matter ot

substitution of elements or additions thereto. . To so limit

?

“19°

the Sectiinn of the Bassick and Edicotn cases, as did the

Court of Appeals below, would make them substantially r:

ineffective to, prev ent the abuses from extension of monop- '

a

oly in. most- cases.

The failure of the Court of Appeals to follow the Bas-

siek—and | ‘Lincoln cases is ground for certiorari. © This

Court granted certiorari in Cities Service v, Dunlap, = 7

U. S. 208, saying:

‘‘This ¢atise is here in. aie that: “we . decide

whether the Cireuit Court ‘of Appeals wrongly de-

lined to follow the rule of the Texas Courts pre-

: scribing how and by whom the facts should be shown

where ene party to a ‘contest concerning ownership

of laitd claims the legal title as bona fide purchaser.”’

_ Fhis Court of Appeals. was accordingly rev ersed he-

cause it did not folldw the established rule.

see ‘ POINT II. | .

Aamregation: Another Form of an pismett to

' Repatent Expired Old ombinations. ahs

_When.an attempt -is made to patént a combination of .

two or more elements or old combinations, it is another

‘form of attempted monopoly extension over what has

gone-into the public domain. Engineering contributions °

in the common store of knowledge of an industry cannot .

be rededicated to monopoly without the justification. of

a new function or a new result from the combination; with-

out such new function or new result it is aggregation and -

the associated mechanisms still stay within the’ public

domain. Mere improvements in result or economy. of

greater_sueeess cannot revitalize an aggreg ration into an

inv ention. | |

All that MeFeely did in the second patent was to.add

to the expired first MeFeely patent the prior art Adjust-

ments which were old and public property. The opéra-

tion 6f the adjustments and the heel seat-lasting are not

q

SS

20

oe i ae

- simultaneous, as in the Grinnell case, but are entirely

separate and are independent of one another.. There is:

no true cooperation to make ‘a. patentable combination.

FXo new gnd useful résult is produced by the second .Me-

Feely patent from .the “‘cooperating action. of the ele-

-ments.’’ “It follows that the MtFeely patent is merely for

an “aggregation of old combinations and invalid.

In the Grinnell v. Johnson case, 247 U, S. 426, this

-Court_ said:

- ae

‘«The question is, does this bringing together of,old

elenients accomplishing the purposes stated amount to

that combination which is inyention within the mean-

‘ing of the patent law; or does the gearing. device, thus |

applied and used, show only an aggregation of old-

' elements performing well-knéwn functions, producing

no novel and useful result entitling the aggr egation to”

the Protection of a patent?’’ (pp. 431-2.)

After quoting fram atithorities as to aggregation, this

Court said:

‘*Applying the rule thus authoritatively settled by

this court, we thinkrno invention is shown in assem-

bling these old elements for the purposes declared.

o new function is ‘evolved from this combination’;

‘the new result, so far as one is achieved, is only that

whith arises from the well-known oper ation of each one

of the elements.’’ (p. 438.) — . . ‘

- The Court of Appeals. of ‘the Sixth Circuit ea in

‘sustaining the second McFeely patent. because. of additions

to the expired first MeFeely patent of prior ‘art adjust-

ments to make the machine more versatile and in holding

that the rule of this Court against extending a_ patent

monopoly applies only when the improvement is in quan-

tity or quality of the product. This ruling is contrary to_

Grinnell v. Johnson, supra, in which this Court held that -

convenience, economy and superiority do not make an ag-

- gregation pateritable. : This Court said:

9

& ;

3 21. 7

_ * * * Phillips may: have produced a more con- .

venient and economical mechanism than others who .-

preceded him, but superiority does not make an aggre-

' gation patentable. Specialty Manufacturing Co; v.

- Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Co, supra. The as-,

- semblage of the old elements, and i eir operation in.

_. the manner indicated, may save time, ‘and the mecha-

nism may meet with a readier sale than other similar

devices, but these things may. result from. mechanical

skill and commercial enterprise, and donot neces-

sarily involve invention. ”? (p. 434.)

In Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton, 174 U. S. ‘492, 493,

supra, this Court said:

@

‘‘Hoffman may have succeeded i in producing a shelf

more convenient. and more salable than any which

‘preceded it, but he has done it-principally, if not

wholly, by the exercise of mechanical skill.’’

This Court did not limit the restriction against extend.

ing the monopoly by i improving one part of an old combina- ©

tion to cases in which the. second patent covers a mere im-

prov ement in quantity or quality of the product. The true

rule as set forth in Bassick v. Hollingshead, 298° U. 8..415, _

is that, although an element is improved in an ms construe-

tiok, thie patent is invalid. As:this Court said:

“Phe question is whether, by .this nee the

patentee, by improving one element of an old combina-

tion whose construction and,oper ation is otherwise .un-

changed, may, in effect, repatent the old combination

by reclaiming it with the improved element substituted

for the old element. That this cannot be done is

* shown by numerous cases in. this and other Federal

Courts.’ it Ag 485.) ; 3 o.

That is exactly what McFeely has done.. McFeely took |

the added adjustments from the prior art. » This does, not —

render the combination patentable ; the approval of sueli a;

course, by the Court of Appeals below, makes this Court’s

decisions ineffective in applying the applicable rule.

?)

| POINT I, gq

. Ceenneected Success is not Essential to ~

‘Anticipation by a Prior Patent.

The.Court of Appeals below founded its decision on

the fact that as between the first McFeely patent ‘and the

second, the second was more successful commercially than

the first. It said that one machine was: built in accordance :

~® with the first MeFeely and; |

“Although the machine successfully. lasted shoes of

specific sizes, it proved incapable of operating satis-

factorily upon a range of sizes large enough to adapt it

| ‘for commercial operation in’ the ordinary shoe. fac-

‘ tory.”” (R. 510, Vol. 1.) | :

_ This we submit is contrary to the doctrine established

by this Court in Smith v. James and Smith v. Hall, 301 U.S.

216, and numerous other cases, Anticipation cannot be -

decided on the basis of ‘comparative commerical ‘suecess :

between hte anticipating structure and the structure of the —

patent in suit. °>Even though the anticipating patent struc.

ture is not commercially successful, it is still an anticipation

if it has already disclosed the prinviples of the invention to . |

-,the’public. Likewise, reliance upon commercial success is an

unsafe’ ground .to sustain a broad monopoly, and is only

«resorted to in cases of doubt; but even then such proof can

be rio substitution for a lack of invention Phi! prior art

as in this ease. pe @ ee

Textile. Machine’ ‘Works v. "Louis Hirsch Textile Mag

‘chines, Inc.; 302 U. S. 490-498-499; ?:

‘Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Tri-Ergon

Corp., 294 U. S. 464-474; cee |

Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. ¥. American Tri-Ergon

- Corp., et al., 294.U. S. 477-486;

DeForest Radio Co. v. General, Electric C9., 283°

| U.S. 664; g * Se

Grant v. Walter, 148 U.S. 547. 556.

£}

ti ee

The Court of Appeals founded its decision on the con-.

trary principle to that established by this Court;: that -is,

that even if the anticipating structure operated success-

fully, while the ‘machine of the patent in’ suit ‘was more _

commercially successful, then th¢re could be no anticipa- .-

tion. This Court, in Smith v. James, ‘supra, however, held

_ that commercial success is unnecessary, In: that ease this.

“Court said as to the lonwid prior use:

ie S| immaterial) ‘that his structure fbr using the

» method was neither the ‘best possible nor as skilfully

designed or used as that later employed by Smith.’

Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 310, 319; ef. Tele-

phone cases, 126 U..8. 1, 931, 336.’* (p. 282 )

With refexence to the Hastings: Brooklfn and Musko- -:

gee prior uses, this Court said: 7 , :

ggcet * ‘the fact that both incubators functioncd, are con- ;

vineing evidence that Hastitigs khew and used in ap-

propriate combination, both in Brooklyn and in :

~ Muskogee, the essential elements of the Smith claim.’

(pp. 2382-3.) °

‘‘He knew the method and used itina ‘devi ice éapatile

' of employing it. -In such circumstances want of com-

mercial success, which-the record suggests may have

been due to lack of technical and busitiess skill, is not

an indication that. there was no prior use.’’ (p. 233. )

The first MeFeely patent: lasted heels exactly the same

as the second McFeely. The onfgizlifference was that the. —

-second McFeely could handle more sizes’ than the . first

McFeely, but the lasting operation was. identical in both.

It is, of course, immaterial that the second: McFeely’ did a

more perfect job. - The first MéFeely, therefore, is .an

anticipation of the second McFeely. S ee

In Hildreth v. Mastorgs, 257 U.S. 27, 34, this Court

said’ ey

| ~ “Tt is not necessary, in order to sustain a\ generic

_~, patent, to show that the device is.a commercial success. -

’ The machine patented may be imperfee} in its opera-

9

24°

tion; but if it embodies the generic principle, and

works, that i iS, if it actually and mechanically performs,.

though only in a crude way, the important function by -

‘ which it makes the’ substantial change claimed for it in

the art, it is enough. di

As’ between the first McFeely and the second McF eely

the. first is generic and the Court’ of Appeals’ found tliat -it

‘successfully-lasted shoes”’ but not. in as wide a range of

commer¢ial sizes. -0l Lee ge

Therefore, the “Gia of Aneeais erred i in disr egarding

_ this Court’s dgcision to the effect that commercial success

"is not a nécessary factor’to make,an anticipating machine.

woe

POINT IV.

Diversity of Opinion.

The ‘second McFeely | patent will expire m October,

ee ee : ee

: ‘There has been no cuits and none is likely to

present itself, to secure diversity of opinion on the validity

_of-the MeFeely patent No. 1,558,737. . Judge Elwood Hamnil-

ton; however, dissented from the opinion ‘of the Circuit

. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit without w riting an

opinion. ~~ eat 4

While there is no conflict of décision between the Cir-

cuits, as to the McFeely patent in suit, but only a conflict of

opinion between the Judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of:

Appeals, yet the decision below conflicts with principles -

established by this Court, and for that reason certiorari is

sought. Ansaldo v. Rheinstrom, 294 U. S. 494; U. Sv.

Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 290; Paramount Publix Corp.

v. American Tri-Ergon Corp.; 294 U. S. 464 ; Altoona

Theatres v. American Tri-Ergon Corporation, 294 U. S.-

477; Mechanics v. Culhane, 299 U. S. 51, 53; Schriber-

Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305%. S. 47-61; Cities —

. Service v. Dw lap, 308 U. S. 208; Mackay Radio v. Radio

~ Corp., 306 U. S. 86; Bassick v. Hollingshead, 298 U. S. -

i“

ee bs 25 er |

. 415; Lincoln v. Stewart Warner Corp., 303 U. S. 545; Leitch

v. Barber, 302 U. S. 458; Carbice v. American Patents, 283

U. S. v4 DeForest Radio v. . General Electric, 283 U.S. 664.

POINT V..

Public Importance. -

1200 of the machines invoYed in the McFeely patents, .

- are under lease by the respqndent. (Vol. 1, R. 399, 483.)

Automatic heel seat lasting is one of the icndaanontal fea-

tures of shoe making. The tribute upon the shoe industry

_ which mast inev itably be reflected in the cost of shoes,

thereby very 5 avely affects the. public interest. Only’

wone with the el rest title to monopoly should have it under

such circumstances. | |

Respondent already stands condemned by the Cireuit °

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cireuit for attempting to

. extend its monopoly on this same mechanism in the Hoyt |

‘patent in suit No. 1,508,394. (R. 513, Vol. . ) The action

of respondent, i in a a the application ii the Unittl

States Patent Office of the second McFeely ‘patent in suit —

for ten months and then reviv ing it, is another phase of

what was heretofore the prev alent pr actice of . extending a |

monopoly. This Court stopped one phase of such ‘a’ prac-

tice in Bassick v. Hollingshead, 298 U.S. 415, and Lincolu

v. Stewart Warner Corp., 303 U. 8. 545. Congress has re-

cently rendered illegal the’ ‘practice of extending monopoly

_ by abandonment and revival. U. S. C.-A., Title 35, See.

41, provides that a patent shall be withheld dies the final

fee is paid within ‘six. months after the allowance of the

application except that the Commissioner .in-his discretion

may receive the final fee during the vear following the six

month period.

The large number of patents of this respondent, many

of Ww hich are in this record, make it essential to the public |

| interest that this vast monopoly over the shoe industry be | °

limited strictly:i in accordance with the principles announced

_ by this Court.

8

~

‘i Dect ek 26

We earnestly submit that this Court should order y

‘this case to prevent this serious departure from the pri

ciples. of the i iaw announced by it. - :

uiaatiges sseeiitied,

*. A. Tovtmiy, Jn., a

Counsel: for Petitioner.

James .B. O’DoNNELL, =| * oe sae ¢

H. A..Topv_min, . : =} )

a eee ek, ae ote *,

Rowan A. GREER, seis ee UN.

Of Counsel. be aS ep aes i Petone

{

v

2 e

tees a

. ‘5

a”

ons

< X: ae

> ry

. .P

f-,

ay. SARS

° Va P

: ‘4

3 ¥ oe :

fi 4 : :

z dino ‘ $4

mn,

&

e