In conclusion, therefore, touching all which appears on the face of the patent with reference to the movability of the frame and the fixedness of the plate, including whatever emphasis can be added by reason of the acquiescence of Reece in the amendments proposed at the patent office, we do not find enough to require us to refuse to give him the benefit of the favorable rules we have explained.

We now come to the especial consideration of the several claims. The fifth claim was the successful conclusion of numerous and expensive efforts to stitch automatically a buttonhole in the form in which it is ordinarily desired, that is, with an eye. This had never been accomplished. Those machines whose work in stitching were automatic were unable to form the eye, and those which formed the eye accomplished this only with the aid of the clumsy and slow operation of turning the material with the hand. We do not think it necessary, either with reference to this claim or any other, to proceed at length on the question of novelty. The single fact that so valuable a patent as this, where so large interests were at stake, and such heavy expenditures had been made in vain, as is shown by the record, for accomplishing what Reece accomplished, had received the continuous and uniform acquiescence of the public and the trade for a period of nearly 10 years, and until the efforts of the respondents below, affords sufficient reason for not prolonging this opinion by an analysis of the alleged anticipatory matters, or by detailed explanations in support of our conclusions that none of them in fact anticipated Reece. This line of defense has been pressed mainly against the fifth claim, but clearly the device to which it relates accomplished what none of the older buttonhole machines accomplished, and it, its method of operation, and its purpose lie in a different field from the invention of Bonnaz, and from all the other earlier mechanisms except those appropriate to the stitching of buttonholes. The essential feature of this claim is the so-called "compound movement" given the needle bar, the result of simultaneous longitudinal and lateral motions. This alone was, of course, old and common in the arts; yet the suggestion of its application to this purpose, combined with the mechanism devised therefor, constitute a patentable invention of a fundamental character, highly meritorious, and one to be protected by a liberal construction. So far as this claim is concerned, we have no doubt that the rules which we have laid down fully apply, and that Reece is entitled to the benefit of the invention, without reference to the changed method shown in the case of producing the relative movements between the frame and the plate.

The elements specified in the fifth claim do not constitute an operative mechanism without the aid of a reciprocating needle bar, or something which will supply its need, and perhaps also not without the spreader. The eighteenth claim covers a reciprocating needle bar, and the twelfth a spreader, and each are fully explained in the specifications. The fifth claim falls within that class where refer ence may be made to the specifications to supply in a claim what it is plain to every one skilled in the art is a necessary incident.

Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 547; Day v. Railway Co., 132 U. S. 98, 102, 10 Sup. Ct. 11. However, no question was raised on this account, and we refer to the matter simply in order to make clear our conception of the scope of the claim. Infringement of the fifth claim is hardly contested, except on the ground of the propositions touching its construction and effect which we have rejected; and, so far as concerns it, we must order a decree for the complainant below.

The eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth claims relate to the cutting and spreading mechanisms, and the "stop" devices. Each is undoubtedly to be construed as in combination with a stitcher in a buttonhole machine; and Reece was the first to combine any of these in such way that all its elements should be operated in their proper order, by mere mechanical power. The defense urged against these claims is mainly the same as that urged against the fifth. Having disposed of what could be raised by that defense, the court considers the alleged structural differences between Reece's and the infringing machines not material. The majority of the court are of the opinion that Reece has made these operations of cutting, spreading, and stopping automatic in combination with the machine as a whole, and that his invention in that respect is so fundamental and meritorious as to require the application to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth claims of the same rules which we have applied to the fifth.

In view of the state of the art, the eighteenth claim cannot be broadly construed, and it must be held to be fully limited by the words, "substantially as described." This limitation, however, relates to what concerns this particular device. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. National Car-Brake Shoe Co., 110 U. S. 229, 235, 4 Sup. Ct. 33. Therefore we find nothing in these words which restricts this claim to a machine in which the frame moves. To give such an effect to the word "carries" as is claimed is more for the pundit than the courts. It is as commonly used in all kindred matters to mean supporting without movement as supporting with it. We are not required to give it a narrow interpretation for the purpose of depriving the inventor of any part of his invention. Nor are we constrained by any well-settled or just rule of construction to import phraseology from other claims for the same purpose. Except in the particulars covered by these propositions, we do not understand that there is any question of infringement of this claim, even when narrowly construed.

Decree of the circuit court reversed. Case remanded to that court, with instructions to enter a decree for an injunction, and an account on claims 5, 11, 12, 13, and 18 of appellant's patent, No. 240,546, issued to John Reece, April 26, 1881, and for further proceedings in accordance with law.

BROWN MANUF’G CO. v. DEERE et al.

SAME V. DAVID BRADLEY MANUF'G CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 1, 1894.)

PATENTS-LIMITATION OF CLAIM.

Nos. 88 and 89.

In the Brown patent, No. 190,816, for an improved coupling for cultivators, consisting of a tube or pipe box turning loosely on the horizontal ends of the crank axle, connected with a head to which the forward ends of the plow beams are bolted, and provided with means for turning it against the gravity of the cultivator in the rear, the first claim, for "the pipe box, provided with a projection adapted to co-operate with a spring, weight, or the draft, to rock the said pipe box against or with the weight of the rear cultivators or plows," cannot be construed as for a combination of the pipe box described with other parts of a cultivator named in the claim or specification, and must be limited to the particular forms of construction of the pipe box described. 51 Fed. 226, affirmed.

Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

These were two suits by the Brown Manufacturing Companyone against Deere & Co., and the other against the David Bradley Manufacturing Company-for infringement of a patent. The cir cuit court decided in favor of complainant (21 Fed. 709), but, upon a rehearing on its own motion, rendered decrees in both cases for defendants. 51 Fed. 226; Id. 229. Complainant appealed.

These suits were each brought to obtain an accounting and an injunction against infringement of the first claim of letters patent No. 190,816, which read as follows:

"Be it known that I, William P. Brown, of Zanesville, in the county of Muskingum, and state of Ohio, have invented a new and improved coupling for cultivator; and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description of the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, forming part of this specification, in which Fig. 1 is a perspective view of the particular form of cultivator to which my coupling is to be applied; Fig. 2 is a side view of one of the couplings, looking in a line with the axle; Fig. 3 is a front view of one of the couplings, looking at right angles to the axle; Fig. 4, an enlarged transverse section through line, x, x, Fig. 3.

"My invention relates to an improved form of coupling for fastening the forward ends of the beams of plows or gangs to the axle of a wheeled cultivator. The improvement consists in the particular construction and arrangement of a tube or pipe box turning loosely upon the horizontal ends of the crank axle, and connected, through an adjustable stirrup or sleeve and bracket, with a head having a long bearing at right angles to the pipe box, to which head the forward ends of the plow beams are bolted, while the pipe box is provided with means for turning it against the gravity of the attached cultivator in the rear, whereby the said cultivators are manipulated with greater ease, as hereinafter more fully described.

"In the drawing, A represents the longitudinal bars, extending forward to form the tongue, and constituting the main frame of a wheeled cultivator, to which my invention is applied, which bars are arranged upon the elevated crank axle, B, supported upon wheels, C. Upon the horizontal parts of said crank axle, between the upright portions and the wheels, are arranged my couplings, which secure the beams of the plows or gangs, D. These couplings are constructed as follows: E are tubes or pipe boxes, which embrace the axle, B, and turn freely thereon. G is a stirrup, which is held to the pipe box, E, by means of a loop, s, and is made to rigidly connect with said pipe box by means of longitudinal ribs upon the stirrup, which engage with corresponding ribs upon the pipe box. The stirrup, however, instead of having a loop, s, may be constructed in form of a sleeve, and made to embrace pipe box,

E, in which case it will be adjusted thereon by a screw bolt, a, whose inner end may bear upon a roughened steel jib, which bites the pipe box, and prevents the sleeve from slipping. Said stirrup is formed with projecting lugs or brackets, H, which are perforated to receive a pivot bolt, b, arranged vertically and at right angles to the pipe box. Around this bolt, b, is arranged the head, I, which is made with a long bearing, to which head the forward ends of the beam are bolted. Referring to the feature of the pipe box and adjustable sleeve, I would have it understood that I do not claim such broadly, as the same idea is shown in patent No. 108,945. J is a cap fastened to the crank axle between the hub of the wheel and the pipe box, by means of a staple, c, which binds around the axle, and is fastened to the cap by nuts, d. This cap serves as a stop to the hub of the wheel, to separate the same from the pipe box; and its curved and flanged end, e, acts as a guard to keep dirt and other obstructions from the bearings of the wheel. K is a brace designed to stay the axle to the tongue; and L is a link arranged in the staple of the cap, J, to which the draft attachment is secured to properly distribute the strain upon the implement.

"From the above description, it will be seen that the gangs of cultivators have free and easy motion laterally, from right to left, on the long bearing of the vertical pivot bolt, and also a free movement vertically upon the axle (by reason of the pipe box), when it is desired to lift the cultivators, either to hang them upon the hooks of the frame, out of contact with the earth, or to raise them for any other purpose. To render the manipulation of the plows or cultivators easy, I provide an arrangement whereby either springs, weights, or the draft power may be utilized for sustaining a part of the weight of the said cultivators when they are lifted from the ground, to be hung up, or shifted laterally. In accomplishing this, I construct the pipe box, with a hooked arm, M, and arrange a stiff spring, N, of metal or rubber, upon the main frame above, so as to engage, by means of a loop, with the end of the arm, M, to rock the pipe box; and as the cultivator beam in the rear is rigidly attached to the pipe box by the stirrup or the sleeve, and its screw bolt, the spring has the tendency to rock the pipe box, and assist the driver in lifting the cultivators.

"I do not claim, broadly, the application of springs to sustain a part of the weight of the cultivator, as this is shown' in my patent No. 128,701, of 1872, but I do claim a pipe box provided with an arm or projection adapted to rock the same; and, referring to this same feature, I do not limit myself to the use of a spring operating in connection with such projection, as the pipe box may be provided with a perforated flanged projection, M', to which the draft attachment may be directly fastened, and so arranged as to utilize a part of the draft to produce the same lifting effect upon the cultivators when attached above the center of the pipe, and, when below the center, assists to make the plows run deeper, and when the plows are raised out of the soil or dirt the draft on projecting flange ceases, allowing the spring to assist in lifting the plows. In the place of the flange mentioned, a counter weight may be employed for the same purpose, or a sheave or pulley may be arranged on the pipe box with a chain, to produce the same effect.

"In making use of my invention, the sleeve or stirrup and brackets can be adjusted to regulate the width between the duplicate cultivators by slackening the set screw (if a sleeve be used) that binds the same to the pipe box, or by disengaging the ribs and grooves of the pipe box and stirrup, and moving said sleeve or stirrup as desired. These ribs or the set screw, it will be seen, hold the arm, M, in an upright position to allow the spring its proper tension, and, by moving the set screw and stirrup or sleeve, the tension of the spring may be regulated as desired. The set screw, or its equivalent adjustment, also serves to hold the sleeve or stirrup and brackets rigidly in place, to give the plows or cultivators a firm and steady upright position. The length of the tube of the pipe box gives a long bearing for raising and lowering the plows, and, while causing the latter to be held steady, affords also an easy motion, and one that cannot get cramped. The length of the pivot bolt, and distance between the brackets, also permit the coupling head, I, to be sufficiently deep to prevent the rocking or swaying motion of the plows when guided by the driver; and, among other advantages, may be mentioned the small degree

of friction which is secured by the long bearings of the pipe box and the head, and also the fact that its construction is such that its bolts cannot be made too tight, and hence there is no liability of its parts being wrongly adjusted by the unskilled. With respect to counteracting the gravity of the cultivators or plows by means of the projecting flange or arm and spring, or its equivalent, it will be seen that it not only assists the plowman in operating the plows, and also in hanging them when not in use, but it also acts as a counterbalance to the tongue, and thus relieves the neck of the team from the weight of the same. It also prevents the shovels from getting dull so rapidly, for, as the under sides of said shovels do not press so hard upon the earth, the force of the earth is more nearly equalized above and below the point, and the shovel is easily worn above and below. It also assists the shovels in scouring, as they are held more uniformly and with a more elastic pressure against the face of the soil, especially when the flange, M', is used, which, when the draft is from the bottom of the same, causes the increased resistance to the shovels (which the hard places afford) to compel the draft to force the shovels deeper into said hard places, instead of skimming over the same.

"Having thus described my invention, what I claim as new is:

"(1) The pipe box provided with a projection adapted to co-operate with a spring, weight, or the draft, to rock the said pipe box against or with the weight of the rear cultivators or plows, substantially as and for the purpose described.

"(2) The combination, with the crank axle, and the gangs or plows, of the pipe box, having arm, M, the spring, N, attached to the main frame, the head, I, and the stirrup, G, or its equivalent, having brackets, H. and pivot bolt. b, and fastened to the pipe box, substantially as and for the purpose described. "(3) The pipe box, E, having longitudinal ribs, combined with the stirrup. G, having corresponding grooves and a clamping device, substantially as described."

Of the annexed drawings the first is taken from one of the briefs in the case, and shows the coupling alone; the second is figure 2 of the patent, and shows the coupling in compination or connection with other parts of the cultivator.

Among the defenses pleaded were denials of infringement and of invention, with references to the following prior patents: No. 9,086, granted to A. H.