KAT. OAB-BBAEB SQOE CO. V. h. S. & M. S. BT. 00» 228 �ail that -would be necessary to prevent infringement would be to change slightly the form of the lug, a^ Qf the sole, or to tighten the boit, G. I do not understand that in the various patents that have been put in evidence there is anytbing which succeflsfally attacks the devioe invented by the pat- entee, and which would prevent it from taking effect as the subject of a valid patent. It ia true, before this invention there were de vices by which the two parts of the shoe were separated, when that which was applied to the periphery of the wheel was wom out, or so worn that it could be no longer successfuUy used; but, after ail, that is not the invention of the patentee in this case. His invention is the peeuliar con- struction of the shoe in these two parts, put together and separated in the way described. And while it may be ihe duty 6î the court to limit the patentee strictly to the daims which he bas set forth; still, it is.also the 'duty of the court to give effect to the invention of the patentee, provided the court can see that he has described and claimed it, and so I think the second claim may be infringed, although there may not be in an infringing machine the lateral rocking motion described in the first claim. �With this construction of the patent, it seems to me there cannot be much doubt but that the devices of the defendants, in both cases, infringe the plaintiff'a patent. The variations are not substantial, but are more in form than in substance. So that, on the whole, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in each case. ����
