300 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �of parts 80 different from the complainants' as not to be the equivalent, within the princlples applicable to combination patents. �There is considerable similarity, at least in the application of principles, between this case and the case of Prouty v. Ruggles, supra. Adopting the language of the court in that case, it may be well said here: "None of the parts referred to are new, and none are claimed as new ; nor is any portion of the combination less than the whole claimed as new, or stated to produce any given resuit. The end in view is pro- posed to be accomplished by the union of ail arranged and combined together, in the manner described, And this com- bination, composed of ail the parts mentioned in the specifi- cations, ;and arranged with reference to each other * * * in the manner therein described, is stated to be the improve- ment and is the thing patented. The use of any two of these parts only, or of two combined with a third which is sub- stantially different in form or in the manner of its arrange- ment and connection with the others, is therefore not the thing patented. It is not the same combination if it sub- stantially differs from it in any of its parts." �Certain models were prepared and submitted by one of the expert witnesses, as illustrating the supposed identity of the two devices in question, but I do not think they demonstrate such identity. The structural arrangement of the parts in the two machines is substantially different. The brace-bar is a distinct member of the complainants' combination. They have claimed it in their specifications to be an essential part of their invention. It is the construction of the several parts, not separately, but in combination, which they claim to be new, and their improvement consists in arranging different parts of the cultivator, and combining them together in the manner stated in the specifications, for the purpose of pro- ducing a certain effect. Prouty v. Ruggles, supra. Applying to the case what I conceive to be correct legal principles, my conclusion is that the defendants do not infringe the com- plainants' patent. �Let the bill be dismissed. ��� �
