456 FEDERAL UErOKXaR �out, are found in Delano's patent of 1849, Martz's patent of FeLru- ary, 1856, and in Grant's English patent of 1847. �As to the fourth claim it is urged by the defendants that this claim is void for uncertainty, because it does not describe an operative mechanism, It is for the "arrangement of the rake-head, E, and foot treadles, H J and G K, or either, in relation to each other, and the axle, B, substantially as and for the purposes set forth." �This claim does not connect the treadles with the rake-head nor the axle, nor show how these treadles are operative parts of the machine. The description of these in the reissued patent is as follows : �" To the upper end of bar or arm, F, are hinged or pivoted the rear ends of the arms, G- and H. The front end of arm, G, is pivoted or hinged to the hand-lever, I, which in this instance is slotted out to receive the lever, G, as shown at d, while its lower end ia hinged or pivoted to the front ends of the braces, c^ oi, as shown at e. The lower end of arm, H, is hinged or pivoted to the rear and lower end of the foot-treadle, J, the front end of which treadle, J, being hinged or pivoted to the an'gle-braces, ai «i, as shown at/. Another foot-treadle, K, is hinged or pivoted to the angle-braces, ai ai, as shown at g, and the rear inner part of the foot-treadle, K, is connected to the front part or end of arm. G, by a link or rod, 7i." �Here is a description of two separate treadles operating independ- ently of each other. Their funotions are different, and no part of one forms any part of another. The words "or either" would seem to indi- cate that it was the purpose of this patentee to claim that if any per- son used both or one of these treadles he thereby infringed upon this claim, — that is, if a rake is made with the treadle, H J, for the^ pur- pose of unloading the rake, and an entirely different device from the treadle, G K, for holding the rake teeth down while gathering the hay, this claim is thereby infringed ; that is to say, the true construc- tion of this claim contended for by complainants is that the words "or either" cover the use of either of these treadles for the purpose of performing the function they respectively fulfil in complainants' rake. If this is the construction of this claim, then the words "in relation to each other" must be disregarded, as these are words which show combination, or a joint or common function, in the parts de- scribed. I think that you must reject the words "in relation to each other," as applicable to these treadles, or else the two treadles are to be treated as independent organisms, each one of which is covered by this claim. �It seems to me that, as a combination of parts, this claim must be held void for uncertainty, as I have already said, because it does not show whether the patentee intended to cover by this claim the two ��� �
