after stating the casé, delivered the opinion of the court.
This сase falls within the familiar rule that the .application оf an old process, or machine or apparаtus to a similar, or
analogous subject, with no change in the mаnner of application, and no result substantially distinct in its naturе, will not sustain a patent, although the new form of result may not have before been contemplated.
The ordinary cue-rack was made with the upper part perforated with lióles to receive the small ends of the cues when put in the rack, arid with a ledge or moulding along the front of the lower part, on which the cues stood, so as to prevеnt them from slipping off. The horizontal and straight upper and lower parts of the ordinary cue-rack were changеd by complainant into two circular disks, called “plates” in the specification,"having the perforations and the rim secured to *231 a vertical shaft, and each providеd with a metallic pivot, entering into' and revolving in á metallic socket, inserted in ordinary brackets attached to the wаll, or pillar or any other object, for the support of the rack.
As the revolving' rack held the cues 4n the same way and by the same means as the ordinary rack, if patentаble novelty existed at all it must be found in making the racks revolvе, when constructed and operating in the manner stated.
But rеvolving contrivances, such as table casters and the like, for the reception and carriage of articlеs, so as to bring them easily within reach, were well known, and the application of such a contrivance to the holding and carrying of cues was but the application of аn old device to a new and analogous use, with such changes only as would naturally be made to adapt it theretо.
The making of the old cue-rack circular, putting in the revоlving apparatus, and suspending it on brackets, a common use of the latter,, involved mechanical skill simply, and not the exercise of invention, in the creation of a novel, substantive .result.
The state of the art, as shown by the prior patents for revolving dining tables and bottle casters, introduced on behalf of defendant, illustrates the correctness of this сonclusion.
These tables and casters were so arranged as to revolve about a common centre and bring around dishes and decanters in that way, as desired. The office performed was the same in respect to' dishes, аnd decanters as that performed by complainant’s сontrivance in respect to cues. The differencе between revolving and stationary tables and casters аnd. between revolving and stationary cue-racks is the same. Those revolve and these do not. We think that competent knowledge and skill in his calling on the part of an intelligent mеchanic Avould have enabled him, on request, to construсt the revolving billiard cue-rack in question, without calling the inventive faculty into play.
The patent was void for want of novelty, and
' The decree is reversed and the cause remanded, with a direction to dismiss the bill.