222 FEDEBAIi BBPOBTEB. �and boit, G, the whole being constructed and arrangea sub- Btantially as specified." It will be observed, the words are "constructed and arrangea." �I am inclined to think there may be an infringement, and this may be a valid claim, independent of what is set forth in the specifications, as he describes the invention, "firBtly,"and in the first claim, without its possessing the rooking motion ; and, therefore, that the view which the plaintiflf's counsel take of the construction of the patent is correct. I have already called attention to the manner in which the inventor divides his invention into two parts — First, so that the sole can accomodate itself to the periphery of the wheel ; and, secondly, the peculiar combination of the two parts of the shoe, the devis by which the shoe is suspended upon the truck, and the boit which secures the devis to the shoe, and the two parts to oach other; and also to that part of the specification in which he says that the difficulties which have heretofore existed are avoided because of the shoe having this lateral rocking motion. He then says his invention or device has another improvement, and that consists in what he describes "secondly" as his invention, in the first part of his specification: the peculiarly simple arrangement of the devis which supports the shoe; the boit. G, serving the purpose of Connecting the «levis with the shoe, and the latter to the sole. Whether or not the combination of the second claim contains, as an essen- tial element, this lateral rocking motion, in order to make it a valid claim, and whether it must be found in an infringing machine, is the question. If this rocking motion was ail that was in the mind of the inventor, I think it may be asked, •with a good deal of significance, what was the necessity of his dividing his inventions into two parts, as he did in his specification, and also in the claims. He may bave had in his mind that the device which he was describing was con- structed in the way which he has specified; but still he claims a combination, which he describes in his second claim, and I think it may be a valid combination, iiidependent of the lateral rocking motion, which he speaks of in the first claim, and in varions parts of the specification. If it is not so, then ����
