DEDEBICK V. CASSELL. 311 �Tuming now to the several letters patent, and taking up the re- spective claims involved in their order, we find that of reissue 8,130 they are tbree, four, five, six, seven, eight, ten aud eleven, which read as follows : �"(3) The slots I, in combination with the bale-chamber C, provided with shoulders, substantially for the purpose set forth. (4) ihe above-described method of succeasively ejecting flnished baies frora a press by means of addi- tional charges of material forced within the chamber, (5) The procumbent or horizontal press-box and bale-chamber B C, constructed with a feed-ocifice at the top, as at A, and provided with horizontal side-tying slots I, substan- tially for the purpose set forth. (6) A press for baling hay, cotton and other flbrous material that is bound into baies, so constructed, combined and oper- ated that the hay is fed in or pressed at one end of the chamber and forced out at the other end by a common traverser and sitnultaueous operation, as set, forth. (7) A press for baling hay, cotton and other flbrous material that is bound into baies, so constructed, combined and operated that the finished baie is forced out of one end of the chamber as the loose material is fed in or pressed at the other end by a common traverser and simultaneous operation, as set forth. (8) The traverser E, constructed with a contracting or yielding front, to w«ige together when the hay overlaps it, substantially for the purpose set forth." "(10) The retaining-shoulder H, in combination with the bale- chamber C and traverser E, for the purpose set forth. (11) In a procumbent press, in which the hay and other loose material is pressed in sections into baies, the slots I, in combination with the press-case B C and traverser E, for the purpose set forth." �Of the above, three, five, seven, eight, ten and eleven are valid. The proofs sustain the presumption of novelty and utility. Eight is for an improved traverser ; seven is for the complete machine ; while the others are for minor or subordinate combinations embraced. That the traverser is new is admitted ; that its novelty is useful, and involved invention, is quite clear. The novelty and utility of the completed machine, and the validity of the claim for it, have already been fully considered. The objection urged against some of the claims to minor combination^, that the parts do not co-operate or combine in action, does not seem to be sustained by the proofs. Six we find to be identical with seven, and the double claim cannot be sustained. Four, properly construed, is also identical with seven. It is for the effect produced by constructing and operating the plaintifs press. It could only be infringed by doing this. The language, — the "above-described method,"— and the otherwiseimplied reference io the specifications, require the claim to be read as one for the plain- tiff's metJiod of operating his press. In Blanchard v. Spragiie, 3 Sumn. 279, this construction was made where there was much less to justify it, ��� �
