wma v. Noam omoseo nonmne mma co. 43 .
through them. The mode of operation is simply rocking or tilting
the rocker-grates.
The model of the Purchase grate shows a series of rocker-grates, · .
each moving independently by itself, and when you rock one of these,
leaving the end of the grate stationary, as it is stationary except for
o an upward motion caused by arr eccentric upon the bar, it is fixed, as _
far as any downward motion is concerned. By rocking this, precisely
the same result is produced as in rocking Rounds' grate. You rock V
the teeth upon this rocker-bar, mashing them in between the teeth
of the fixed grate, precisely as in the operation of the Rounds grate.
It is true, coal or cinders may accumulate upon the shafting which
rests against the wall, forming, as it does, a ledge or shelf; but it does
not affect the principle involved, which is that of one set of tilting ’
grate-bars matching with a fixed or stationary set. In my opinion
it was not invention, but only an act of mere mechanical skill or adap-
tation, after the steps in the art taken by Purchase,to make agrate with
fixed or stationary bars at the ends, between which the rocking·bars
could pass or match. It seems to. me Purchase would have had the
right, in applying his device to practical use, to have dispensed with
, his end rocking-shaft, and iixed his end grate-bars rigidly to the ends
of the nre-box, so there would have been no material deviation from .
the operation shown in his device.
It seems to me there can be no doubt but what Purchase, after he
had obtained this patent, could have said, "The rocking of this grate
up and down is of no special p1·actical importance; I will simply
make the end bars fixed and rigid in the end of the nre-box, and rock
the teeth of the next bar between those ;" and it would have been one ,
of those modincations of his device which would have been allowable
under the patent, because no patentee is held, in reducing his patent
to application, to strictly and entirely follow the mere mechanical
device shown in his drawings of the patent. He may deviate, so long
as he does not violate the principle involved. ,
The bill in this case is therefore dismissed, with costs. ,