780 FBDBBAL BEPOBTEB. �they worked. He does not know what became of the ma- chines after that; thinks he may have sold two of them. But the drawings and machine, from which the modal of the Tyler invention was constructed, were prior to this date. The former was made in 1857, and the latter in the early part of 1858, and both anticipated the public use of the Eus- sell invention, if such public use could be held to be anything more than an experiment. �Such a view of the te.stimony, which accords to Tyler pri- ority of invention of the solid frame, disposes of the question of lack of novelty, and relieves me from considering the other proposition of the complainants, that if all the elemei^ts of the combination are old, the patent, nevertheless, is sustain- able upon the newandusefulresults which have followedthe new combination. �But, under this head, it may be proper to observe that the Ipng-unquestione^, validity of the pa,tent, its exten^on and re-issue, all make a .strong jprim^ /pcie ;case for the cojp.- plainants ; and when to these fiacts are £l44^d; \he utility of the combination, which the testimony discloses, and the acknowledged inccrporatipn pf the solid frame into the de- fen4ant*^s machine, iq or derto.avoid or correct the defects of tWji^ting or warping,, which Tyler found ip. existing organiza- tions at the time of bis invention, it se^ms quite clear that the complainants' daim in this respect is not unwarrantable. �2. The pnly remaining question is that of inf ringeinent. The defendant's machine bas two wheels, witb.an axle Con- necting the wheels. It contains the solid piece or frame, made of a single casting, for the support pf the intermediate shaft and gearing, and is arranged between the main wheels, and is sustained by the axle. It differs from the mechanism of the complainants' only in dispensing with the use of the rectangular wooden frame, A A', B B', which the Tyler pat- ent describes as a medium of suppart between the solid frame and the axle. Whether the machine is made more or less efficient in operation by the use or non-use of such a sup- port is not an important inquiry. The defendant cannot relieve himself from the charge of infringement by directly, ��� �
