108 FEDERAL KBPORTEB. �and the rim of the concentrator. One machine is constructed to compel the juice to pass through the bed ; the other to render it im- possible for the juice to take that course. It has been contended in behalf of the plaintiff that the spaces which appear in the defend- ants' machine between the edge of the bed and the rim of the concen- trator are perforations in the bed, within the meaning of the plain- tiff's patent. But the word "perforation" conveys the idea of a hole through an article, and cannot, with propriety, be held to describe a space between two articles such as in the defendant's machine is left between the bed and the concentrator, To so read the plaintiff's patent would be to enlarge its soope by giving a strained interpreta- tion to the language employed. �But it is again contended, in behalf of the plaintiff, that the use iu defendant's machine of a bed for the lemon to rest on, located insid.» of the concentrator, with a space between the edge of the bed and th'fl rim of the concentrator, is but the employment by the defendant cf equivalent meehanism to accomplish the same resuit, and for that reason he must be held to infringe. In one sense the resuit is tb e same ; that is to say, iu both the machines the juice is squeezed ont of the lemon and caught in a concentrator. But in one the juice is forced by the action of the presser directly through the bed to the concentrator below by means of perforations in the bed. In the other a different direction is given to the juice. It is forced to the edges of the bed, where, by force of gravity, it passes around the edge of the bed and then to the concentrator below. This change in combination is substantial, and not merely colorable, as appears by testimony introduced by the plaintiff, and also by testimony intro- duced by the defendant. �The plaintiff's witness Frank Stone who used the defendants' machine for some two weeks, squeezing about 300 lemons a day, sold that machine and bought one of the plaintiff's, because, as I under- stand the witness, the plaintiff's machine does not choke up so fast, nor require such frequent eleansing, as the defendants'. The defend- ants' witness Hall finds from actual experiment that the perforations in the bed of the plaintiff's machine render it more liable to clog than the defendants' machine, and more difficult to clean. Thus both sides, while they differ as to which machine is the better, agree that the machines perf orm the work differently. If the f act be, as both sides prove, that a difference exists between the operation of the two machines in respect to the liability to clog, and in the ease with which the machine can be kept clean, and if, as the plaintiff shows, this ��� �
