656 ���FBDKBAL BEPOBTBB. ���Such recollection as Renter and Stowe testify to waa evidently greatly stimulated by the exhibition to them of the drawing, "Powers, No. 2," and of a model of the. arrangement. Their independant testimony is very weak. At most, however, whatever Powers did in the Avay of the actuating lever shown in the drawing, "Powers, No. 2," was a mere experiment. He acted as if he regarded it as of no value. It would have been of no value if it had been perfected. The reason why he threw it aside as valueless must have been because it was not perfected. The case is one falling -within the principle of Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477; Hall v. Blrd, 6 Blatchf. 438; Hartshorn v. Tripp, 7 Blatchf. 120; Calioon v. Ring, 1 Olifford, 592, 61i; 612; ana Wilson y. Coon, 19 0. G. 482; and not within the principle of Coffin v. Ogden, ISiWall. 120. �What is shown in Powers' application of November 10, 1862, even if a perfected invention, embodied in working machines successfully used, doeS not antieipate claims 2 and 3 of the plaintiflf's re-issue patent. Claim 2 of the re-issue is the same as claim 1 of the origi- nal. The defendants have thin shoes attached to the main frame, substantially as described in the original and re-i'ssued patents, in cembination with what is the equivalent of the Davis actuating rod, so that thereby the movable shoes, though not the immovable ones, are simultaneously shifted from one line to another, so that after the shifting all the shoes taken together, movable and immovable, form a line more or less zigzag than before. This was never ac- complished, as a perfected invention, by any one before Davis. It is what Davis does and what the defeadants do, and they thereby in- fringe claim 2 of the re-issue. The defendants' rod is within the plaintiff's arrangement. It is the material part of the plaintifif's simultaneously-actuating arrangement. Davis bas the rod and the lever added to it. It is no invention to leave off the lever and retain the rod, and, instead of locking the lever, lock the rod. The lever in the one case pulls and pushes the end of the rod. The hand of the operator, in the other case, pulls and pushea the end of the rod. In having the rod and lever, Davis bas the rod as well as the rod and lever. Claim 2 of the re-issue, being a claim to the lever, and so a claim to the lever and rod together, for the lever can shift nothing uniess the rod is attached to it, is a valid claim, and is infringed if the rod, which is the material and essential part of it, is used, the rod being new with Davis as well as the lever. Sister V. Father, 8 Eli. & Blackb. 1004; Setters v. Dickinson, 5 Exch. 312; Adam, v Thayer, 17 Blatchf. 468. ��� �
