Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/848

 PATTEE V. MOLINE PLOW CO. 833 �a meclianiam as lie shows, may be valid. He does not claim, in fact, to have invented a beam-yoke, nor a two-way joint; he does not assert that he is the first to have made a joint of this character, but simply puis it into his combination. So, too, an arehed beam-yoke, jointed in the middle, as shovm in Poling's patent, must be conuned to his special joint ; and this was evidently the view of the commis- sioner of patents. Poling describes his device, — his arehed axle, — and then is allowed one claim, as f ollows : �" Having thus described my invention, I claiin as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, the bars. A, constructed substantially as herein shown and described, and pivoted to each other at their inner ends, to adapt them te receive the plow-beams and draft, as and for the purpose set forth." �He describes the peculiar kind of axle. He describes how he secures the peculiar kind of joints shown — by cutting the axle in twc and pivoting the parts together. It is true this is a torsion joint, the same as is used by the defendant, but it is a peculiar kind of torsion joint; and inasmuch as torsion joints were not new, and the idea of a joint in the middle of the axle had been shown by Owens, 1 think Poling must be limited to his peculiar joint. He cannot claim the idea of a joint in the middle of the arch or axle, because that had been done by preceding inventors. �The defendant's arehed yoke is a peculiar device by itself, It ie an arehed axle with a hinge in the center. It differs not essentially, perhaps, in its mode of operation, from Poling's, but it has another kind of joint — a different joint from Poling's; not but what it has the same function, but Poling had no right, in the state of the art, to cover the function, or to cover every joint at that place. He was not the first to joint the arch or axle of a cultivator in the middle for the purpose of obtaining the resuit which he obtained. The field was open to the defendant to make another kind of joint in the same place which might accomplish the same resuit as Poling's without infringement. I therefore corne to the conclusion that the defend- ant, in its combination of parts to produce its cultivator, does not infringe upon any of the special devices which are shown and covered by the complainants' patents. It is true that the defendant has an arehed axle, but arehed axles were old, older than Schroeder's or any of the complainants' patents. It is true that defendant's axle is jointed in the center, but an arehed axle or beam-yoke, jointed in the center, was older than Poling's. It is true that defendant uses a two- way joint by which lateral and vertical motion of the plow-beam ?-s v.9,no.l4— 53 ��� �