330 FEDERAI KEPOKTER. �nation of certain mechariism for holding the sole or heel of the shoe (or both) to be polished with the mechanism of the polishing tool, under such conditions of mechanical combination that either the holding mechanism ean be so moved as to bring the heel of the shoe in proper relations to the poHshing tool, or the polishing tool can be so operated as to bring it into proper relations with the heel by means of the holding mechanism; and bis judgment was that in the defendant's machine there is no attompt to combine a shoe-holding mechanism with the polishing tool so that the two will operate prop- erly together. �The criticism made upon his statement that there is no attempt in the defendant's machine to combina a shoe-holding mechanism with the polishing tool, so that the two will operate properly together, is unwarranted, because it is obvions that he does not mean any kind of shoe-holding mechanism, but refers to such as travel in a fixed path in relation to the polishing tool, and within certain limits maintainsthe heel adjustably in this relation. �Aside from the weight to be accorded to his judgment as author- ity, I agree with his conclusions both as to the construction of the complainant's patents and as to the question of infringement, and am of the opinion that in the defendant's machine the shoe-holding mechanism of the complainant's patent is dispensed with. �It may be forcibly urged that a narrower construction of the com- plainant's patents should be adopted than was necessary in the case before Judge Shepley, or is necessary in this case. There is much to indicate that in the Ingalls & Budding patents the shoe-holding mechanism is designed to hold the shoe rigidly, although the mechan- ism itself is to be adjustable in its relations with the polishing tool by the manipulation of the operator, and is especially contrived with this view. Plainly, the object of the second Budding patent was to remove the practical difficulty resulting from this feature of the mechanism, and he devised a mechanism which could be more freely manipulated by the operator, thus allowing the shoe to be more freely turned and guided. But it does not appear to have been conceived by Budding that the true way to obviate the difaculty was by dis- pensing with all deviees for rigidly holding the shoe during the polish- ing operation, and substituting such as would enable the operator to guide and control the shoe by holding it in his hands. If the correct construction of complainant's patents requires that one element of their combination shall consist of a holding mechanism, in which the shoe is rigidly h'eld by the mechanism, the defendant, by dispensing ��� �
