Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/673

 658 FEDEIIAL EEPORTES. �in the drawinga of his patent. It had no crank-shaft, but had a bar with short cross-bars fixed to it, and cross-arms extending between the oross-bars and drag-bars attached to these arms, and he diapensed with the rack and pinion, and prolonged one of the cross- bars near the middle of the length of the first-named bar, and carried a rod from it to the rear of the machine, to the lower end of a hand-lever on a shaft from which the shoes were hung, and so worked the shoes ; the first-named bar turning as a shaft in bearinga, and each alter- nate drag-bar being so attached to the first-named bar as to have, when attached, a rotating motion in the arc of a circle in a direction opposite to that of its adjacent drag-bar. An unsuccessful attempt is made to show that Davis' shifting arrangement, as embodied by him in machines, was impracticable and worthless. But it is shown to have been practically applied in the form of model No. 2, and in other forms. �Davis is clearly shown to have been the firat person to ihake a suc- cessful machine for changing the shoes of a grain-drill into substan- tially two lines from substantially one Une, by a shifting movement applied to any of the shoes by mechanism operating on and from the rear of the machine, and worked without stopping the machine or seriously interfering with its operation, Hia invention and patent are entitled to a liberal construction, daims 1, 2, and 3 of the re- issue are not anticipated, and the re-issue is nofc invalid because for a different invention from the original. �As to claims 4, 5, and 6 of the re-issue they are, inf ringed, and the foregoing view of the statm of the Davis invention shows ,that those claims are not anticipated by the Jessup apparatus, or by any other prior structure. There is a patentable combination and co-aetion between the devices for shifting the shoes and the lifting devicea for raising the shoes, either simultaneously or individually. It may often be neeessary, after shifting has been deternained upon, and while it is in process of being effeoted, to suddenly raise one or more, or all, of the movable shoes, because of some apparent obstruc- tion in the path. So a compound motion of the toe of the shoe re- Bults, composed of a backward or forward motion, and an upward motion, resulting from the co-action of shifting and lifting. As the compound motion is a resultant of the two forces, so the two forces act in combination to produce the compound motion. �There mu!st be a decree for the plaintiffs for an account and a per- petuai injunction, with costs. ��� �