EOWELi, V. LINDSAT. 299 �"brace-tooth," and as capable of greatet resistance, and less liable to bend or break than the defendants' machine. �Then, I think, there is force in the claim that the curved part of the shank lying within the beam in defendants' device performs a function not found in complainants' combination. The curved head rests on the clamping boit, so that thereby ail the teeth may be adjusted to a Une. The function of alignment is thus secured, and, by this arrangement of the parts, the boit on which the head of the shank rests becomes not only a clamping device bot an aligning boit. Further- more, it is quite apparent, from an examination of the modela, that in the operation of the defendants' machine, when, for example, the team is backed, the pressure does not move the teeth out of position, because the clamping boit on which the curved head of the shank rests operates as a stop and pre- vents any forward movement of the teeth ; whereas, in com- plainants' device, it is evident that if the brace is not set so tightly in the mortise that it 6annot escape, it might, in backing, be drawn entirely ont, and the teeth would be pressed forward, with nothing to operate as a stop except the pivot which fastens the shank to the beatn, and with a liability that as the machine should be started forward its movement might be sucb as to cause the brace to catch on the beam, or to pre- vent it from passing directly' back within the slot or mortise. �From what bas been said, and without further elaboration, it would appear that the daim made by defendants is not without reason to support it, namely, that in their device they omit the brace-bar and do not substitute for it an elenient which wholly performs the same function; that, therefore, their substituted element, if there is one, is not an equivalent, because, "by an equivalent in sueh a case it is meant that the ingredient substituted for the one withdrawn performs the same function as the other. " Gills v. Wells, supra. Further, that in the construction of their device a new element is in- troduced which performs a function substantially different from that which the complainants' device was designed to perform, (see Babcock v. Judd, 1 Fed. Ebp. 408;) and, in short, that the defendants' combination is a new arrangement ��� �
