298 FEDERAL RBPOETER. �into the mortise at the end of the beam, bein^ curved, and resting on the clamping boit at proper distance from the point where it is pivoted to the beam. Is the curved form of the head of the shank the equivalent of complainants' brace- bar, in the sense of the authorities cited? It was argued that the word "brace," as used in complainants' specifica- tions, bas reference to the functions of an arm, or an en- largement of the upper portion of the shank of the shovel, and that the curved head of the standard or shank in the defendants' device, lying within the mortise, operates as an arm, and secures the same leverage or frictional power as does the complainants' brace-bar. Whether this feature of com- plainants' combination be called a brace or an arm, there can be ho question of the function it is intended to perform. It is not only to be clamped in the slot in the beam so as to hold thetooth securely in working position, but it is evidently intended to strengthen the shank below the beam so as to prevent it from bending or breaking when in operation, which is one of the primary functions of a brace. The complainant John S. Eow- ell testifies that the brace thus welded to the shank between the tooth and the beam stiffens the shank, and allows the use of a lighter material for the shank than could otherwise be used. It operates as a support, which it would seem re- moves the terminal strain from a point immediately below the beam to a point midway or below the center of the shank. This function of the brace is not found in the construction of defendants' machine, for it is evident that, as it is constructed, the strain terminates on the shank at the point where the shank is clamped. So that while it may be said that fric- tional resistance or leverage between the pivoted point and the clamping boit is obtained in both devices, it is observable that the complainants' brace performs a function that is omitted in the defendants' machine. It affords support to the shank, strength to the structure, and the suitable term, "brace-bar," is used in complainants' specifications as express- ive of power of resistance. And it is, therefore, not difScult to understand, as some of the witnesses have testified, why the complainants' device is recognized by the public as the ��� �
