Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/315

 STEWABT V. MAHONST. 203 �baok frame, consisting of two parts, with Connecting stretch- ers, the posts forming the back being hinged or pivoted to the frame and forming the rear legs, and pivoted to the upper end of the frame forming the front legs, so fastened and arranged as to readily fold up, and when opened to prevent the legs from spreading, a Connecting stretcher in the back frame being so placed as to form a support for the rear of the Beat. The claims were as foUows : �First. The combina tion with the leg f rames of a foldiag chair, in which the front leg frame is independent of the seat, of a back frame connected at its lower end to the rear legs, and to the upper end of the front legs frame by means of a pivot, ■vyhereby the legs are prevented from spreading when the chair is opened, and admit of being folded compactly ' together when closed, as and for the purpose speciaed. �Second. The combination with the back frame of a folding chair, provided with an independent back section, of a stretcher attached thereto for supporting the rear of the seat, whereby the strain of such seat is received directly upon the back, substantially as described. �LowELL, C. J. The patentee and complainant relies on both claims of his patent, and upon an infringement of both by the defendant. �His second olaim is : "The combination with the back frame of a folding chair, provided with an independent back section, of a stretcher attached thereto for supporting the rear of the seat, whereby the strain of such seat is received directly upon the back, substantially as described." A. chair is produced and madean exhibit, as "George Hunzenger's folding chair," which the complainant admits was made and sold before the date of his invention, which contains the combination of the second elaim, unless that claim should be construed as cbn- fined to a chair having an arrangement not described in the claim itaelf ; that is, to such chairs, and only such, as are the subject of the first claim. I see no ground for thus limiting the second claim, which would seem to have been made broad on purpose to include a class or classes of chairs not in- cluded in the first claim. If this were not the purpose, it ����