&24 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �original. What I do say is that it is quite clear that the office of the re-issue was to seeure the broad olaim now con- tehded for, and the complainant must be held to such a claim, even though it may reault that the real invention is not se- ctired. I am of opinion that the invention thus claimed ia anticipated by the patent granted to H. W. Sabin, December 3, 1850. Concededly this patent is an anticipation if it describes a rake head, which is an equivalent for Holden's, as one of the elements of the combination. �The Sabin patent shows a horse rake in which the rake teeth are mounted separately upon a continuously revolving axle by eye bearing. The eye bearings are slipped upon the axle, and are so formed as to abut against each other. The teeth can oscillate independently of each other upon the axle, but in the tilting operation more simultaneously by means of a transverse bar, or yoke, which bears upon one end of the teeth. In the tilting operation, the center of the axle is the center of oscillation, and the yoke unites all the teeth so that they oscillate as a unit upon the axle. If this device does not present a rake head in the strict definition of the term, it does in substance. The head of a rake is that part which holds the teeth together for unitary action. The Sabin de- vice does the same work in the same way as Holden's, and the devices in one are but the equivalent for those in the other. It contains a set of teeth which oscillate as a unit on a continuously revolving axle, so that the center of oscil- lation coincides with the oenter of rotation of the axle. �That Holden made structural changes, and constructed a more efficient machine than Sabin's,— one which involves in- vention and which was not anticipated by Sabin's,— seems quite clear; but that he is not entitled to claim the broad invention which the re-issue was designed to seeure seems to me equally clear. �The bUI is therefore dismissed. ��� �
