PARK AND CEMETERY. 
82 
The questions for decision then are simply these: 
Is the patent valid? If so, has it been infringed? 
In passing upon the first question we refrain from 
expressing any opinion as to the patentability of 
appellant’s invention. The point is made and ar- 
gued at length by appellees’ counsel that section 
4SS6 of the Revised Statues requires the patentee 
to be a person who has “invented or discovered any 
new and useful art, machine, manufacture or com- 
position of matter, or any new and useful improve- 
ment thereof”; that the only patentable inventions 
are those belonging to the classes enumerated in 
the statute; and that appellant’s invention does not 
come within any of the enumerated classes. We 
prefer, however, to rest our decision upon other 
grounds, and therefore deem it unnecessary to dis- 
cuss a defense which involves the controverted 
meaning of the statute rather than the actual 
merits of the invention for which the patent in 
suit was granted. 
The mausoleum of familiar type resembles in 
some degree a miniature temple. As commonly 
constructed the door in front opens into a trans- 
verse vestibule which occupies the width of the 
structure. An aisle or corridor extends at right 
angles from the vestibule to the rear wall of the 
mausoleum, and on each side of the corridor are 
crypts or loculi placed one above the other. These 
crypts are oblong stone or slate boxes, each of 
sufficient size to contain a burial casket, and the 
casket is placed in the crypt through the side which 
is toward the interior of the mausoleum. The 
opposite or back side of the bank of crypts is 
parallel with the inner face of the external wall 
of the structure. 
The method of construction described in the pat- 
ent is designed to afford means of ventilating and 
draining the crypts into the open air, while pre- 
venting the escape from them into the interior of 
the mausoleum of the gases or liquids resulting 
from decomposition. For the purpose of ventila- 
tion the patent directs that there shall be a space 
of some inches in breadth between the back walls 
of the crypts and the inner side of the wall of 
the mausoleum. In each crypt are apertures or 
vents, one or more on the plane of the upper sur- 
face of the bottom of the crypt and one or more 
near the under surface of its top or cover, and 
these vents open into the air space between the 
crypts of the mausoleum wall. The latter is pierced 
with one or more openings at or near the surface 
of the ground and one or more at the top of the 
wall. It is also stated to be desirable to have ceil- 
ing fit closely upon the top of the crypts and to 
leave between it and the roof proper an air space 
connecting with the vertical air chamber mentioned. 
On the side next to the corridor the crypts are 
closed tightly with a suitable slab or wall to pre- 
vent any escape -of offensive gases into the in- 
terior of the mausoleum. 
Coupled with this means for obtaining ventila- 
tion and drainage of the crypts is the provision 
for interlocking or securing the back edges of the 
horizontal shelves, which form the tops and bot- 
toms of the crypts, in or to the wall of the mau- 
soleum, thus securing a solid, connected and durable 
structure. The ventilating feature is preserved by 
cutting out of the rear edges of each shelf for the 
greater portion of its length a rectangular strip of 
the approximate width of the vertical air chamber. 
This rectangular cut is shorter than the length of 
the shelf, so that there is left at each end a 
projection which bridges the air chamber and is 
secured to or interlocked with the mausoleum wall. 
In the language of the patent, ‘‘the back edges of 
the shelves are secured in the inner faces of the 
walls and interlocked with them, excepting at the 
openings forming the air flues.” 
In the structure which is claimed to be an 
infringement no part of the shelves referred to 
extends across or into the air chamber. Instead, 
as appellant alleges, the back or inner edges of 
the shelves of the crypts are connected with the 
mausoleum wall by blocks or filler pieces arranged 
in pairs and fixed in cement, with suitable wiring, 
so that when the structure is completed and the 
cement hardened the shelves become permanently 
Joined with the side wall to substantially the same 
extent as and in practically equivalent fashion to, 
the projecting portions of the shelves of appellant’s 
device. In other words, appellees’ method is 
claimed to result in the same rigid and durable 
connection between the bank of crypts and the 
mausoleum wall. The appellees deny that their 
method of construction is of the character just 
described, but on the contrary say that what they 
do is to place a number of bricks or other sub- 
stances in the air chamber between the back wall 
of the crypts and the inner face of the mausoleum 
for the temporary purpose of holding the crypts 
in place during the process of construction, and 
that such supports are in no sense a part of the 
permanent structure. The means of ventilation 
and drainage appear to be substantially the same 
in both structures. 
But precisely what are the ‘‘old devices” which 
he has combined? He disclaims contending “that 
there was any invention per se in attaching a shelf 
to a wall, or that the patent in suit involved 
as its salient feature such securing of a shelf to 
a wall.” But apparently this form of construction 
must be one of the elements or “devices” which 
enter into his combination. Otherwise, it would not 
be so strenuously contended that apppellees’ meth- 
od, or alleged method, of connecting the crypts with 
the mausoleum wall produces the same result as 
appellant’s method and should be held to infringe 
his device. Indeed, it seems evident that appellant 
regards his plan of projecting portions of the 
shelves to be secured in or to the mausoleum wall, 
or some similar contrivance, as one of the factors 
of his invention. But the only other factor or ele- 
ment, so far as we can perceive, is his system 
of ventilation and drainage, and this system is not 
shown to possess any feature of novelty which of 
itself would be entitled to a patent. Nothing else 
is pointed out as indispensable to or forming an In- 
tegral part of the combination. 
We say that appellant’s plan of ventilation and 
drainage exhibits no novel features, because we are 
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the fact was 
so established. The evidences of record show 
clearly that for a number of years at least before 
appellant applied for his patent, mausoleums had 
been actually constructed, or described in patent"' 
already issued, with a vertical air chamber between 
the superimposed crypts and the mausoleum wall, 
with apertures or vents from the crypts into the 
air chamber, and with openings from the latter 
into the outer atmosphere. These are the three 
essential parts of appellant’s design, and none of 
them singly or all of them in combination origin- 
ated with him. 
The patent in suit therefore must rest upon the 
asserted novelty of combining means of ventilation 
and drainage, which are not new, with that form of 
construction, which is also not new, by which the 
shelves of the crypts are in some permanent man- 
“The Practical Book of Garden Archi- 
tecture,” by Phoebe Westcott Humphreys, 
just published by J. B. Lippincott Company 
of Philadelphia, is one of the handsomest 
and most useful of the fine garden books 
that have been published in years. The 
book treats in a simple, practical, informa- 
tive way of every type of garden and land- 
scape construction, and is equally useful 
and suggestive to the private owner of 
large or small grounds, or to the profes- 
sional gardener or landscape architect. It 
is beautifully executed typographically, 
with a frontispiece in color and 125 illus- 
trations from actual examples of garden 
architecture and landscape construction. 
This volume has been prepared from the 
standpoint of practicability, the best taste 
and general usefulness, and is equally suit- 
ed for modest or extensive garden con- 
struction in public or private grounds. The 
book contains 330 pages, is handsomely 
bound in cloth and sells for $5 by the J. 
B. Lippincott Company of Philadelphia. ' 
The Department of Agriculture has just 
issued Bulletin No. 13 on “White Pine 
Under Forest Management,” by E. H. 
Frothingham, an illustrated book of 70 
pages. This bulletin summarizes the most 
important facts relative to white pine, with 
regard both to the original forest and to 
the second growth. The yield tables for 
second-growth stands presented in the bul- 
letin are based on measurements made in 
ner fastened to or interlocked with the wall, of the 
mausoleum. But the difficulty here is that the ele- 
ments in question, whatever particular form either 
may assume, do not interact or co-operate with each 
other to produce the common and desired result. 
Though both are employed in the described struc- 
ture, they do not appear to be mutually depend- 
ent. Obviously, the same means or method may be 
employed for obtaining ventilation and drainage, 
and those objects secured, without any permanent 
or substantial connection between the crypts and 
the wall of the mausoleum. It is equally evident 
that the crypts and mausoleum wall, though placed 
somewhat apart, may be united in such a solid 
and enduring manner as to be practically one 
structure, without providing either ventilation or 
drainage. In the former case the bank of crypts 
would not only rest upon a separate foundation but 
be throughout independent of support from the 
exterior wall of the mausoleum. In the latter case 
openings would have to be made in the connectiug 
material, like the rectangular cuts in the project- 
ing shelves of appellant’s device, in order to se- 
cure ventilation and drainage. In other words, as 
appears to us, appellant merely brings these two 
factors into juxtaposition and concurrent use, but 
does not in fact produce any new or novel com- 
bination within the meaning and intent of the 
patent law. As we see the matter, it comes in 
reality to the question of the relative desirability 
of different modes of construction nether of which 
involves any display of inventive genius. 
This conclusion is supported by numerous cases 
which we have examined and which appear to us 
controlling. Among these are Hailes v. Van 
Warmer, 87 U. S. 36S, where the doctrine Is 
stated plainly: 
The earnestness with which appellant’s claims 
are pressed in brief and oral argument has led 
us to give them the most careful consideration; 
but we are unable to find in the record before 
us any basis of fact which distinguishes this case, 
on any recognized or tangible principle, from the 
cases just cited and others of like import in 
which similar conclusions have been reached. We 
are satisfied that the decision of the court below 
was correct and the decree appealed from is there- 
fore affirmed. 
southern New Hampshire by C. A. Lyford 
and Louis Margolin. These may be con- 
sidered as roughly applicable to second- 
growth stands throughout most of the 
range of white pine. From them have 
been derived tables showing the value of 
stumpage at prevailing prices and the profit 
or loss resulting from the management of 
second growth under favorable and un- 
favorable conditions. Methods are also 
suggested for securing successive crops and 
for increasing the quantity and quality of 
the yield. The chapters on “Direct Seed- 
ing” and “Protection” are from an unpub- 
lished report on white pine by A. K. Chit- 
tenden and J. S. Ames. 
“The Advancement of Alton” is a most 
interesting general report on a city plan- 
study for Alton, 111., recently made by- 
Charles Mulford Robinson, of Rochester,. 
N. Y., for the Alton 1 Board of Trade. The 
book contains 48 pages, with a number of 
photographic illustrations and diagrams, 
and is divided into the following sections : 
The General Survey; Railroads and River; 
The Street System; The Park System; Ad- 
ministrative and Miscellaneous. 
The Austin Tandem Motor Roller is de- 
scribed and illustrated in detail in a new 
16-page booklet just issued by the Austin- 
Western Road Machinery Co. of Chicago- 
It shows detailed pictures of parts and in- 
teresting pictures of motor rollers at work 
on roads. 
BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED. 
