486 FEDBfiAL BSPOBTEB. �tion, literally interpreted, of any horizontal rotatipg geed- wheel in the hopper, and valve in the seed-tube, a transverse reciprocating bar, and operating hand-lever. Such a combi- nation is open to more than verbal criticism. When, how- ever, the reeognized rules of interpretation in such cases are brought to bear, -we find that this claim differa from the others only in making the rotatory wheel operate the seed-valve. Said valve had previously been operated in connection with the oscillatory wheel, bar, and lever. Hence, the introduc- tion of the intermittent rotatory wheel, the forka on the transverse bar, and the checks or stops at certain points, enabled the three combinations to be effective in their re- spective operations, separately considered. Each of those claims is therefore held to be valid. As to the infringement, much might be said if the court had at its command the appliances whereby, through models and drawings, it could make its views olearly appear as to details of mechanical con- trivances. In the absence of such aid it would be uselesa to attempt a detailed description thereof. It must Buffice to Btate that the defendants infringe each of the plaintiff's claims, limiting them to the use, in combination, of the der vices specified. The combinations are the same, and the devices used are the same, with merely colorable change as to form. The forks, seed-wheels, and checks exist in the patent and in defendants' machines in combination, substantially as set forth in plaintiff's patent. �A decree will be entered for the plaintiff accordingly, with reference to the master, Thomas G. Eeynolds, to report the amount of profits and damages. �8ee infra, 487, for decision of the coiirt upon motion for rehearing and to Bct aside the interlooutory decree. ��� �
