DAVIS V. BEOWN. 657 �Claim 3 of the re-issue is also valid, and is not open to the objec- tion that it is not warranted by the oi-iginal specification. The rod extending to the rear of the machine is the material thing in the actuating meohanism, and is f ully described and shown in the original patent as the rack-bar. It is called a " Connecting rod," and a "Con- necting bar, " in the re-isstie and not in the original ; but that is imma- terial. It is a Connecting rod and a Connecting bar. It oonnects the actuating lever with the crank-shaft as in the def endant's machine ; it connects the actuating hand of the operator with the swinging cross-bar. ihe re-issue, in speakiiig of mechanical devices for shift- ing the shoes, says : �"The raek-bar or Connecting rod, m, may be used for this purpose,, and thereby the shoes or hoes may be shifted from a straight to a zigzag line, or vice versa; said Connecting bar, m, being held in position, if desired, by any of the usual mechanical devices for that purpose." �This statement is not found in the original specification ; but the rack-bar, m, is described and shown in the original, and it is ahown there as used to shift the shoes, and it does shift them when its rear end is moved, as it is, by the lever shown. A locking lever is shown to hold the actuating lever in position, and it is only the skill of the mechanic, when the lever is dispensed with and the bar is retained, to hold the bar in position by a locking de vice. No additional sup- port is given to claims 2 and 3 of the re-issue by calling in the re- issue the rack-bar a Connecting rod, or by omitting in the re-issue the words "which connect the cranks or arms with the levers," as thoae claims are warranted by the original specification. �Claim 1 of the re-issue is not to be so construed, in view of what existed in any machine made by Powers, according to what is shown in bis application of November 10, 1862, if to be regarded as a com- plete invention, as to cover what is found in such machine. The claim is to be construed as a claim to the shoes attached substantially as described, and capable, so far as they are movable, of being simul- taneously shifted by a single movement ; such movement being pro- duced by mechanism in the machine, and not requiring the stopping of the machine or the removal of pins or bolts. So construed, claim 1 is valid, and is infringed by the defendant's machine. �Davis put his shifting invention into use, and granted lieenses under his original patent. The form in which he used it in model No. 2 was substantially the embodiment of the same invention shown v.9,no.ll— 42 ��� �
