BOIEB V. BUSBELL. ���697 ���to approach the shaker so nearly as to render the maclime entirely inoperative for the threshing purposes. The complainant's exhibit shows a greater space between the lower part of the defleetor and the shaker, but it seems to have been altered after the printing of the drawing. We have also before us a model made by the respondents from the drawing, which shows that the machine, if so made, would be useless for the purpose of the invention. It may be, as claimed by the complainant, that the position of the defleetor was in some way changed in making the drawing of the original model, and the complainant intended to give more space between it and the shaker than appears in the respondents' exhibit ; but as the patent was issued on the drawings filed, it should be very clearly established that this mis- take occurred, before this court should attempt to change it by a decree. On this point the evidence is somewhat conflicting, but we think the preponderance is with the defence. �The combination of these old devices, then, as made and patented by the complainant, did not produce any new or useful results. It is inoperative and without value, and would not do the work for which it was designed. If the machine as now used is practically useful, it bas been made so by the changes and improvements suggested and introdueed by the respondents and others. The beater and other improvements introdueed by the respondents are not only necessary to a successful operation of the invention, but materially change the relations and f unctions of some of the different parts — notably that of the beater. The function of this part of the combination is entirely different from the functiona presented for the complainant's "rotary rake." In the specifications of the complainant's patent its function is decribed : "The revolving rake pulls the straw from under the straw-defleetor. S, and prevents the machine from clogging at this point." For a successful separator, it is necessary to use a beater, one or more, to stop the velocity of the straw as it leaves the threshing cylinder, and also to knock out the grain, and thereby prevent it from passing over the shaker and out among the straw. There is no need of a rake, as such, to get the straw from the de- fleetor, if space enough is left to allow its passage. The velocity of the threshing cylinder with the enclosed box of the machine will drive the straw away from the machine. �We think, therefore, that the complainant's combination as pat- ented bas not been infringed by the respondents. This view of the case renders it unnecessary for us to determine whether any of the ��� �
