Danone v. nrcxroan. 351
It seems clear that De1ong’s patent must be restricted tothe ob-_ ·
lique parallel grooves on the face of the sweep; and, without decid-
ing the somewhat doubtful question of the originality of the alleged .
invention, I shall confine myself to a consideration of the last of the
T above-named defenses, viz., assuming the patent to be valid, have the
defendants used the patented device? The discussion of this ques-.
tion, as before stated, must be confined to the "Bickford· Seeder of I
‘ 1880." It was so treated by counsel both in their oral and printed
arguments. , .
Does the defendants' seeder constitute an infringement? It seems
plain that it does not. The only feature of complainant’s device that
was not known in the art long prior to his patent, whether the com-
ponent parts are segregated or considered · in combination, is the
obliquity of the grooves on the face of the sweeps. The complainant i
has endeavored to show that the Bickford seeder is provided with 4
obliquely-grooved sweeps. The defendants, on the contrary, contend
that the grooves are straight. I think counsel are right in so con-
struing the patent, which makes no claim for straight grooves; and
the patentee must be confined to the language of his claim.; .Are
the grooves on the defendants’ sweeps straight? Mr. Gallup and `
Mr. Bickford both testify that the seeders manufactured by them are .
constructed with a segment of a wheel having corrugations run-
ning squarely and straight across its face. They then present a ‘-
rough model representing a section of the seed-box, rocker, and
sweeps manufactured by them, on which the grooves certainly ap-
pear straight to the eye. A great part of the evidence of com-
plainant in rebuttal, however, was directed to showing that the ,
grooves in this exhibit were not in fact straight, but were in some
instances out of true, there being more or less divergence about them I
all, which, it is insisted, constitutes a colorable evasion of the patent.
The test was made by placing a straight-edge in the grooves of the
inverted sweep, and it was thus ascertained that in the nrst segment I
there was a very slight divergence from a line drawn parallel with the
axis of the shaft; in the second the grooves were nearly straight; in
the third the divergence was one thirty-second of an inch, and in the /
fourth and fifth one sixty-fourth of an inch, on the face of the sweep,
which is less than an inch in width. With one exception, the varia- ,
tions might have been occasioned by poor casting; but in any view they
’ are so innnitesimal that I could not regard them as suliicient to consti-
tute an infringement, even if all the seeders manufactured by the defend-
ants were similarly constructed. Complainant, as shown by drawings