tary motion. "The principle of a machine is properly defined to be its mode of operation, or that peculiar combination of devices which distinguish it from other machines." Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531, 570, 571, 17 L. Ed. 650. Now, what was the principle of Schroeder's invention? What was the advance in the progress of the art which his combination marked? What was the peculiar combination of devices which distinguished his from all prior machines? It was the combination of the sliding cog-bearing cylinder, by which alone the reciprocating rotary motion was imparted to the operating shaft, with the old and familiar elements of his combination. The history of the prior art has been searched in vain for any device or machine in which a sliding actuating cylinder on the operating shaft, provided with cogs or cogwheels adapted to mesh with those of the driving wheel, is disclosed. The use of such a sliding cylinder to impart motion to the shaft, in combination with the other parts of this machine designated in the first claim of this patent, was new in the art; and the facts that its usefulness is not denied, and that the appellant has seen fit to depart from the many devices open to his use, and to adopt that of the appellee, strongly indicate that it marks a distinct and useful advance in the progress of this art. The appellee was not ignorant of the principle or mode of operation he was seeking to secure when he drew his specification and made his claim. They show that this was the peculiar principle or mode of operation which he described and sought to secure. He said in his specification:

"My invention relates to an improvement in means for operating washing machines, and it consists in a shaft which is revolved continuously in one direction by the operator, combined with an angular revolving shaft, which is made to revolve first in one direction and then in the other, and a vertically moving cylinder placed upon the angular shaft, and which is provided with a double row of teeth or cogs which extend partially around the cylinder, and which mesh with the pinion upon the driving shaft for the purpose of causing the angular shaft to revolve."

And he claimed

"An operating shaft having a rotary reciprocating motion, a cylinder placed upon the shaft and having a sliding movement thereon, and through which cylinder motion is alone communicated to the shaft, and a double row of teeth or cogs upon the cylinder, extending at an angle to the shaft, combined with a driving shaft."

It is plain that the cog-bearing, actuating, sliding cylinder was the element of this combination which embodied its principle and distinguished its mode of operation from those which preceded it. This principle has been appropriated by the appellant. He has adopted this new mode of operation. He has placed in his machine this sliding cylinder, by which alone motion is imparted to the operating shaft. He has placed upon that cylinder two rows of cogs, which extend at an angle to the cylinder and mesh with the pinion of the driving shaft. These two rows of teeth are simply the double row of Schroeder separated into two parts and placed facing each other on either side of the pinion of the driving shaft. The two rows of Brammer and the double row of Schroeder perform the same function, operate upon the same principle, and produce the same effect. They mesh

46 C.C.A.-4

with the driving pinion, and by this means revolve the cylinder and its inclosed shaft alternately in opposite directions.

It is contended that the appellant is not guilty of infringement because he does not use the specific means described by Schroeder for the purpose of holding the cogs on his cylinder in mesh with the driv ing pinion; that he has not imported into his machine the elliptical recess in the cylinder, the extension of the driving shaft beyond the pinion to engage with the flange formed by the recess, the large tooth at each end of Schroeder's double row, the enlarged space in the pinion prepared to receive this tooth, and a number of teeth in his pinion corresponding with the number of teeth on one side of Schroeder's double row. But these are mere details of construction; mere means of union and operation of the elements of the combination, pointed out in the specification as one method of accomplishing this purpose interchangeably with obvious mechanical devices appropriate to reach the same end. They are not substantive constituent elements of the combination described and claimed by the appellee. They are not essential elements of that combination. What Schroeder described and claimed here was the cog bearing, actuating, sliding cylinder in combination; not the specific form of that cylinder which he described, nor the identical means he pointed out to hold its cogs in mesh with the pinion, but this tooth-bearing, actuating, sliding cylinder in combination with the driving shaft and pinion and the angular operating shaft of the washing machine. He does not describe the form of his cylinder as a part of his invention. He does not claim it as such. He says in his specification, "This cylinder will preferably be made. in the form here shown;" and this is to say, in effect, that this is one of the forms in which this essential element of the combination, the tooth-bearing, sliding cylinder, may be made. It is true that the cogs on the cylinder of Brammer are not held in mesh with the pinion by the identical means pointed out by Schroeder; but the use of the means which the latter here pointed out he did not secure or attempt to secure to himself in the first claim of his patent, nor was his right to the use of the combination there claimed restricted to its use by these identical means. A description in a specification of details which the claim does not make elements of the combination, and which are not essential to it, simply points out one method of using it, and does not restrict the claim to these details. The mechanical devices described by the patentee for holding the teeth of the cylinder in mesh with the pinion were not essential to the combination, because the problem of so holding them in gear was simple, and the state of the art disclosed many devices adequate to accomplish that result.

One who appropriates a new and valuable patented combination cannot escape infringement by uniting or operating those elements by means of appropriate mechanical devices which differ from those which are pointed out for that purpose, but which are not claimed in the patent. Deering v. Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286, 302, 15 Sup. Ct. 118, 39 L. Ed. 153; City of Boston v. Allen, 91 Fed. 248, 249, 33 C. C. A. 485, 486. The appellant has used obvious mechanical devices to unite and operate the appellee's combination. They accom

plish the same purpose as those described in the patent, and he cannot appropriate to himself this combination and all its elements, and then escape infringement because he unites or operates them by common mechanical devices which differ from, but accomplish the same purpose as, those described in the patent. The combination of the appellant contains the very principle of the appellee's invention; the new mode of operation which he conceived, described, and claimed in his patent; the cog-bearing, sliding cylinder, by which alone motion is imparted to the operating shaft, in combination with the angular shaft, the driving shaft, and its pinion. It contains every element of the patented combination, except the sliding cylinder, in the identical form described in the specification of the appellee, and it contains the mechanical equivalent of the sliding cylinder. While the sliding cylinder of Brammer is not in the same form as that of Schroeder, it is the same thing. It performs the same function and attains the same result, the imparting of reciprocating rotary motion to the shaft, by the same mode of operation, and as this principle and mode of operation were new, so far as is disclosed by this record, in the art to which the patent of Schroeder relates, his cylinder falls within the fair meaning of the term "mechanical equivalent," and it should be applied to the combination in suit.

It is said that the subsequent patent to the appellant raises the presumption that his combination is new, and that it does not infringe that of the appellee; and this proposition may be conceded. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 271, 14 L. Ed. 683. In this case, however, it is met by a counter proposition of not less weight. It is that where the chancellor has considered conflicting evidence, and made his finding and conclusion thereon, they must be taken to be presumptively correct, and unless an obvious error has intervened in the application of the law, or some serious and important mistake has been made in the consideration of the case, the findings and decree should not be disturbed. The circuit court twice considered this case, and held that the actuating, sliding cylinder of the appellant, by which alone reciprocating rotary motion was imparted to the operating shaft, was the mechanical equivalent of the sliding cylinder of Schroeder; that the appellant's combination contained every element of that of the patentee; that it appropriated the principle and mode of operation which distinguished the latter's combination from the devices which had preceded it; and that the appellant must be held to be guilty of infringement. That court supported its findings and decree by able and exhaustive opinions, which are reported in 98 Fed., at pages 880 and 886. A thoughtful consideration of the law applicable to this case and a careful review of the evidence presented in it has failed to convince us that the conclusion of the court below was induced by any error of law or mistake of fact, and it must accordingly be sustained.

In the court below the appellant strenuously contended, and in some parts of the briefs of his counsel he still seems to maintain, that the first claim of Schroeder's patent, which has been under consideration, was void: (1) Because it did not include the mechanical means for holding the gearing of the pinion in mesh with that of the cylinder; that is to say, the flange on the cylinder, the extension of the

driving shaft beyond its pinion so as to engage with the flange, the large tooth at the end of the double row, and the enlarged space in the pinion for its reception. (2) Because the extension of the driving. shaft beyond the pinion, though clearly shown in the drawings, was not specifically mentioned in the specification. (3) Because, without these or other mechanical devices, the combination would be inoperative. (4) Because some of these devices were secured to the appellee by another claim of his patent, which the appellant does not infringe. This position was not sustained by the circuit court, and since the delivery of its opinion counsel for the appellant seem to retain but little faith in its soundness, since one of their briefs contains this declaration:

"Now, while we do not very seriously contend against the holding of the court that plaintiff's patent is not void for the want of sufficient statutory description, because it would not practically benefit defendant if plaintiff should lose his patent, we do strenuously oppose the reasoning of the court and the application of the liberal construction rule to bring about that end, and at the same time to hold the defendant's patent void."

In other words, the argument in this court is, not so much that this claim is void because it does not include these means of combining the teeth of the cylinder with those of the pinion, as it is that these means are essential elements of the combination, and therefore restrict the claim to a combination operated by these identical devices. The reasons why the latter contention ought not to prevail have already been stated. The former is not more tenable. The drawings were a part of the specification of this patent, both by its terms and by the provisions of the statutes. Rev. St. § 4889. It is true that neither they nor the specification can be read to expand the claim; but the specification and the drawings must be read together, and given their obvious force and meaning, for the purpose of determining what devices are pointed out and described therein. When the specification and drawings of this patent are so read, the extension of the driving shaft beyond the pinion so that it will engage with the flange on the cylinder, and every other mechanical device requisite to unite the essential elements of the combination claimed, and to make it complete and operative, are plainly pointed out and described. By the first claim of this patent the invention secured by it was not limited or restricted to a combination which included every mechanical device-every detail of construction-described in the specification and drawings; nor was it essential to the validity of that claim that it should include the obvious means of uniting and operating the essential elements of the combination it secured. The purpose of the drawings and specification of a patent is to plainly describe the machine or combination invented, so that one skilled in the art can construct and operate it. The purpose of a claim of a patent is to desig nate the limits of the machine or combination which the patentee has invented or discovered. A claim for a machine or for a combination of mechanical devices is not insufficient or invalid because it does not include mechanical devices for uniting and operating the elements of the machine or combination which would readily suggest themselves to mechanics skilled in the art, or which are described in the specifica

tion and drawings. Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 585, 591, 26 L. Ed. 1177; Deering v. Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286, 302, 15 Sup. Ct. 118, 39 L. Ed. 153.

Nor is the first claim of the patent void because it does not include come of the specific devices which are described in the specification and which are secured by the second claim of the patent. A patentee is not required to state in a single claim all that he has described and invented. The first claim of the patent clearly specifies a novel and patentable combination of mechanical elements, which is operative both by the means pointed out in the specification and by obvious mechanical devices appropriate for the purpose of holding its various elements in union; and there was no error in the decree which sustained it. The decree below is affirmed, with costs.

(106 Fed. 935.)

DODGE MFG. CO. v. COLLINS et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

No. 322.

February 7, 1901.)

1 PATENTS-INFRINGEMENT-SPLIT WOODEN PULLEYS.

The Sanborn patent, No. 275,947, for a split wooden pulley, claim 1, is entitled to a narrow construction only, and is not infringed by a spoke pulley.

2. SAME

The Philion patent, No. 468,490, for an improvement in the process of constructing wooden pulleys, which consists essentially in uniting segments to form rings, and then uniting the rings together by means of glue and pressure, is void for want of patentable novelty. 3. SAME.

The McNeal patent, No. 351,064, claims 1 to 6, which cover split wooden pulleys and a mode of constructing the same, show merely combinations of old and well-known devices, which produce no new result, and are void for lack of patentable invention.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia.

Lysander Hill (John W. Hill, on the brief), for appellant.

W. W. Van Winkle, for appellees.

Before FULLER, Circuit Justice, and PAUL and BRAWLEY, District Judges.

The de

PAUL, District Judge. This cause is here on appeal from a decree of the circuit court for the district of West Virginia. The appellant was the complainant in the court below, and filed its bill alleging infringement by the defendants of certain letters patent belonging to the complainant, and praying an injunction and account. fendants answered, denying the validity of the complainant's patents and the infringement of the same. The court below dismissed the bill. The patents involved are No. 275,947, granted to Gustavus B. Sanborn, April 17, 1883; No. 351,064, granted to Charles McNeal, October 19, 1886; and No. 368,492, granted to George Philion, August 16, 1887. All of these patents are for improvements in split wood