826 CBDERAL REPORTER. �port the plows in an upright working position, and permit of their being OBcillated in a lateral direction; while the third claim ia for the same combination of parts, with the additional statement that the joints attaching the plow-beams to the yoke must permit the beams to be moved or oscillated freely in a lateral or vertical direc- tion. The fifth claim is for the combination of draft-bars, conuected with the beam-yoke and plow-beams as described, �By the first claim he covers as new the combination of certain parts as shown, and the joint allowing a lateral motion to the plows; and by the second and third claims he covers the other funetious of the same joint; not the joint as such, on the assumption that no such joint was ever before made, but the resuit or operation of the joint. By the second claim, that the joint sustains the plows in an upright position; and in the third claim, that it allows the plow to move laterally or vertically. This joint, as shown in his meehanism, is simply a two-way joint, and when used in this combination, as described, permits all these movements or functions as a necesaary part of its action in the meehanism, and also holds the plow in an upright position, and I cannot see how these claims for the resuit or functions of the joint can be deemed valid. It is the meehanism whieh is the subject-matter of the patent, and not the resuit of the meehanism. �The Eichholtz patent is for a tongued cultivator, parts of which are so arranged and combined as to dispense with wheels, and where each draft animal was attached to his own plow. It is not a tongue- less cultivator, as will be seen, but consists of a beam-yoke, coupling the plow-beams together and to which the plow-beams are attached by a peeuliar joint described, which allows the plows to be opevated vertically and laterally; but they could not be dropped below a cer- tain line by reason of the extension of the heel of the joint, as I call it, backwards from the pivot. The claims in this reissue patent, which are brought in question in this case, are : �"(1) The combination of two plow-beams and the beam-yoke, conuected together by joint pieces so that the yoke sustains the beams in upriglit work- ing position without their being connected together in rear, and is itself sup- ported in an elevated position, the beams having also lateral and vertical motion, substantially as and for the purpose specifled." �— Or, as I understand it, this claim is for a combination of this special kind of beam-j'oke, so arranged as to support the plows m a vertical position upon the yoke. ��� �
