.38 .» .—&;   __ , FEDERAL REPORTER. » . V . . · M
the public, aswell as anevasion of the law, to construe it in a manner differ-
ent than from the plain import of its terms." i
Thespecification hereiswell calculated. to admonish the public that
Harris was the hrst to employ an indicating registerin combination or
conjunction with a fare register or fare registering mechanism of any
kind, and the language of the claim is equally well calculated to adver-
tise the pretensions of the patentee to the monopoly of such an improve-
. ment. Nevertheless, this meaning is not to be ascribed to the claims _
unnecessarily; it is not necessary for present purposes to decide that they
must receive such a construction, and the conclusion is reached that they
should receive the narrower interpretation which has been indicated.
The fare register of the defendants is one in which the permanent reg-
ister is not actuated by the resetting of the trip register during the act
of moving the latter back to the zero or starting point. In their register
the permanent register is not actuated by the act of resetting the trip
register, but is actuated onlywhen the trip register is making its original
record. At each actuation of the trip register in their apparatus, the
permanent register is actuated, and not otherwise. For this reason their
apparatus does not contain the registering mechanism which is an ele- u
ment of each claim. Nor does the fare registerof the defendants contain
I any locking device which detains the direction indicator so that it can-
t not be moved until the trip register is reset at zero. It is this device in .
the Harris’ invention, which, not only prevents the indicator from being
changed until the trip register is reset, but also prevents it from being
changed until the record of the trip register has been transferred to the
secondary register. In the defendants’ register the indicator not only
can be, but must be, changed before the trip register is reset. This feat-
ure of the apparatus precludes the possibility of an accidental omission
` on the part of the collector to change the direction indicator when reset-
ting the trip register.
I Thus it will be seen that the principle of the Harris invention and of
the defendants’ apparatus differs in this: that while the former depends
upon the locking of the direction indicator when the trip register is re-
cording fares and the unlocking to reset the trip register and transfer its
record of fares to the permanent register, the apparatus of the defendants
i .makes both a trip registry and a permanent registry of fares whenever a
single fare is registered, independently of the co-operation of the indica-
tor, and the indicator must be changed before the trip register is reset.
· If Harris had been the Hrst to employ a direction indicator with regis-
tering mechanism and had not circumscribed the boundaries of his in-
vention by his description in the patent, the question of infringement
would be presented in a very·difl`erent aspect. Obviously it was not in-
vention merely to employ an indicator in a fare register having primary
and permanent registering mechanism when one had previously been
employed in a fare register having only primary or trip registering mech-
anism. Invention could consist in a combination of an indicator with
both or either registering mechanism, in which the devices would co-
operate to contribute some new function o1· mode of operation to the