cammuai if. movrim. aoT �^heels by a felot in oq% place and a; pih in' ancMiet, aud thia' mdde ofi conneetion is loas vftuable thartthat of a pituiain or; oounecting rod to change tli* a'oSou 6f the TOtatiiig wlieel io' that of the reciprocatmg lever; ' -The experts differ u'pon the question -whether the iritrodii-utiou of Connecting roda'by Wy- man, supposing this to be ai that he did; wouM inake a new oombination. This is tho vital point of the case. ; Both experts agree that everymeelianic knew.'iand for years had kno*n; that a slot and-^jpin and a 6oniie,eting rod wei^e- alternative modes of ob1a,ining this chango of ' motioti. If soi the change did Dotrequire invention. * ' -^ : m :7/ . �.>iThe patentable difference», ithen;b*6tween!the English con- .trivance. and"^yfn»n's arenot in their levers or their conaasti tion with the crank-wheels. Wymanhas eombinedwith^thise parts double hooked pawls and sliding, reciprocating raeks, to actuate the crank-wheels, instead of single toothed pawls and wheels constantly revolving in one direction. I suppose this to be a new oombination in the sense of the law, and patent- able ; but it is s6 by virtue of the novelty of these parts. �It was suggested ia argument thStt 'the' Whitesmith & Steven loom may not haye,gone intp use. I think the evidence on both sides;is!(ilear,tha,t it mighthave bc(^i3.,,u.sed,; an^ii/have no doubt that'it is one of the pBtents referred^ 'tOi.byiiWyman inhis s|)ecificatio]i;' One 'i^ea^Sh f OSthis opinibii is'ihkt Wytiian is yery ca-refuj in !^ll, tlrf^e pf the claii^.s.,in,|p3.|:fQ,,t.o,i^ake/the Connecting rods a part of hisi. oombination, nlt ds altogether probable that he thought the woild at liberty te u'ae levers with slotsihall such icombiiiations, arid'th^t'h'e'himseli'could hoJ.d; all combinatipo» which inoju^ded gonp^cting ];od^.„,j In both points I consider him mistaken. He was not boun^ to limit his own particular combination in that wayi-atidreia'thft oth'er'hand, Hecotild noii' 'ciMnl' 'the Whifesniith '&'-SWen m-achmeas b§ing,his by.a.dding eo3;ipe(5tiijg,rQd£^,^9,i|i.,,, ,., �If the novelty of the plaintifE's conabiiiatiQniOonsistftiincthe mechanism to which I have above referred as differing frqm that of the earlier .patent,_it follows that he capnot 'cdmpjain that th,e. defcn^anti, h%ve qpjppiiiea i?|irliite8U)ith &"Steven,'8 Ipvers.with taeir own pecular œpchaaism, invepted:by,theffl,h!?7; fore the date of ■Wyman'B-patetati; Inthis ciaoe,' as inftNo.igOS-,! ��� �
