Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/789

 TYLER V, CBANB. 777 �support, D, formed in one piece ; and that portion of the said support, D, between the pinion and pitman-crank is hollowed out to receive the shaft, e, or is made eonvex on one side and concave on the other, with a horizontal projection on each Bide of the concavity, in order not only to give strength to ^He frame with a small amount of material, hut also to afford a shieid to prevent thegrass or grain from underneath winding around the shaft and clogging it. �At the date of the cpmplainaots' invention the evidence shows that there were two kmds of harvesters or mowers in lise :' one having two driving or traction- wheels to aid in com- municating motion to the cutting apparatus, and the other only oiie; the additional wheel in the last-reoited machine acting simply as a support to keep the frame in an upright position. Tyler took the existing two-wheel machine, and aimed to correct the practical defects bf twisting and wairping by placing the gearing and shafte that impart the motion to the cutter upon a rigid comipon support or frame, formed in one piece, as above stated. �The defendant says that this does not oonstitute invention ; that the" two-wheeled machine was old, as is shown in the Aultman & Miller patent, (defendant's Exhibit A;) that the solid piece, acting as a support for the driving mechanism, was applied by Eussell to a one-wheel machine, before the date of Tyler's invention, (defendant's Exhibit C,) and that their combination in a single machine exhibits mechanical skill only, and is not the subject of a patent. �The counsel for the complainants endeavor to meet thi». objection in two ways, either of which, if successful, is a com- plete answer. They insist (1) that although the Kussell pat- ent antedates the complainants', Tyler was in fact the original, and first inventoir of the mechanism, which, it is alleged, he took frbm the Eussell machine. But, if the testimony fails to satisfy the court that Tyler's invention was older than the Russell patent, then (2) they claim that a new and usef ul resuit has been produced by the combination of old instru- mentalities, and that, whilst the resuit is not patentable, the- combination is which secures it. �With regard to the first point, I am inclined to think that ��� �