The very most that can be said for the appellant’s patent is that it discloses a mere mechanic’s adaptation of a device in public use and on sale more than a year before the patent was applied for to make that earlier device more readily attachable to the basic structure with, which it was designed to cooperate to-produce a vibrating chair or bed. We-see no need to elaborate upon the District Court’s fully and carefully reasoned opinion. D.C., 232 F.Supp. 372.

Judgment will be entered affirming the-judgment of the District Court dismissing count one of the plaintiff’s complaint.