272 FEDERAL REPORTER
Probably it is unnecessary to determine the validity of these claims in No.
790,023, for it is clear that the incidental removal of some of the crinkling
or stretchability put into the moistened paper by the doctor is a natural and
almost inevitable result of any carrying off and drying process. This is all
the defendant is doing. In this regard it is clearly acting within its rights.
Bill dismissed, with costs.
Nicholas M. Goodlett and John P. Bartlett, both of New York,
Clyde L. Rogers, of Boston (George K. Woodworth, of Boston, on
the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and MOR-
TON, District Judge.
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a decree of
the District Court for Massachusetts in an equity suit charging in-
fringement of letters patent Nos. 790,021, 790,022, and 790,023, is-
sued to James Arkell May 16, 1905, on applications filed December
21, 1901, July 17, 1903, and May 26, 1904, respectively. The first
patent is for a process for making stretchable crinkled paper from
finished paper for wrapping or packing purposes; the second is for
a machine for making such paper according to the process of the first
patent; and the third is for a process and a machine for making paper
of this character, in which the extent of the crinkling is regulated to
allow the required amount of stretch. The patents are owned by
the plaintiff. The defenses are anticipation, noninvention, and non-
The process of No. 790,021 consists in taking suitable finished
paper, moistening or saturating it in one or two baths, smoothing or
stretching it laterally, pressing it against a smooth cylinder, so that it
will closely adhere thereto, bringing it in contact with an obstruction,
known as a doctor blade, which crinkles the paper, and then removing
and drying the paper; the crinkles rendering it stretchable.
The machine of No. 790,022 for carrying out the process of 790,-
021 consists in substance of a tank 9, in which rotates a drum 10,
curved cross-rods 53 and 55 to laterally stretch the paper, a smooth
roll 24 partly submerged in tank 17, a press roll 27, a doctor blade 36,
and a carrier 49 to receive the crinkled paper as it comes from the
doctor and carry it away to the driers.
In No. 790,023 the process and machine are in all substantial par-
ticulars the same as the process and machine of the patents just spoken
of, with the single exception that the carrier is so constructed that its
speed may be regulated with reference to the speed of the roll 24 and
the discharge of the crinkled paper at the doctor as to take out a defi-
nite portion of stretch in the crinkled paper and leave in it the amount
 In No. 790,021 the claims in issue are Nos. 1, 2, 10, 19, 20, 21,
22, and 23. Claims 21, 22, and 23 are all that we need refer to in the
discussion of this patent. They read as follows:
"21. The process of making stretchable paper, such as is suitable for wrap-
ping or packing purposes, which consists in passing finished paper through
. The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921.. Saint Paul, Minnesota. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/. Accessed May 3, 2016.