do its work while the other arm of that pair shall clear the frame in rising. Therefore the support of the raking apparatus was required to be of such form and character, and so placed relatively to the platform and frame, that one arm of a pair would not interfere with the working of the other arm of the same pair. Now, the arms of the rak. ing apparatus are diametrical arms, the centers of which are axes mounted on a horizontal head, which head is so fastened on a vertical shaft that, the opposite ends of the arms being inclined to the axis of rotation, one end of one arm will descend and sweep across the plat form, while the other will be carried in an exactly opposite direction, with its rake-teeth turned up, while the teeth of its opposite arm are turned down. In such an arrangement the bearing point or axis of ro-. tation of the arms must be carried up a considerable distance above the platform and reach over in a diagonal direction from the front edge of the cutters to the delivery edge of the platform, so that the rake at its end next the base of the rake-support may be brought close enough to the platform to do its work. Hence the inclined post of No. 35,315, described as so inclined, and thus claimed in claim 2 of that patent. But in the specification of the reissue, though the drawings show the same sort of inclined post or standard, it is said:

From the platform or finger-beam the support may extend in an inclined position as high as the top of the draft-frame, and then take a turn over toward the center of said frame, as represented, so as to form a support for the rake and reel which shall be somewhat higher than the frame and between the two drive or supporting wheels. The particular shape and height of this support is not very material so long as the base of it is affixed at some point between the center of the main frame A and the outer shoe or divider, G.

The special kind of support described and shown in the patents, original and reissued, is essential to the operation of the special kind of raking apparatus there described. But the appellees' machine has a raking apparatus differently organized. In it each arm moves independently of every other arm. The arms are not coupled in pairs, and each does its work without reference to the movement of any other. Therefore it is unnecessary to raise the supporting-point of the rake-arms to any considerable height or to carry it over to a location between the drivewheels; and in the appellees' machine the pivot on which the rakes revolve is at a considerable distance toward the outer shoe, and is not all between the drive-wheels. The appellees' sweep-rake is not substantially such a sweep-rake as is referred to in claim 1 of the reissue, nor is it mounted in such a manner as to perform the functions of the appellant's rake. The rake-post in the appellees' machine is vertical, and not inclined, and is mounted on the shoe or inner end of the finger-beam. In analyzing the two machines in view of the state of the art it appears that the appellant adopted a continuously-revolving gathering and discharging rake to a two-wheeled loosely-jointed finger-bar machine. To do this he employed a peculiar rake and a peculiar rake-sup

port. The appellees employ an entirely different rake. They have a series of radial arms pivoted each independently of every other in a head which has a double cam-guideway for each arm, and the arms are thereby elevated vertically, so as not to strike the frame in passing up. This makes it possible for the appellees to place the support for their rake on the finger-beam by the side of the frame and in the line of the cutters, instead of behind the frame. No such organization is possible with the appellant's arrangement of rakes. The center of movement of his rakes must be brought in line with the cutters by having an inclined rake-post the base of which is not in a vertical line with the line of the cutters. He shows no mode of placing the base of the post on the fingerbeam. If it were placed there, with his arrangement of rake-arms and his inclined post, the center of motion of the arms would be so far out of its proper position that the arms would not do their work. Having independent radial arms, the appellees can have a vertical and not an inclined rake-post, and can bring the center of motion of the arms in a line with the cutters by mounting the vertical post on the finger-beam. They do this, and for that purpose they have a bridge over the inner shoe of the finger-beam for the foot of the rake-post to rest on, while at the same time the cutters can vibrate under the bridge. The post is hollow and supports the cam-guideway, and the vertical shaft which revolves the rake passes up in and through the hollow post. The appellees have not borrowed from the appellant. They devised a new arrangement of rake, which made it possible for them to mount their rake-support on the heel of the finger-beam proper, where the appellant can never mount his and where that of the appellees is mounted. The theory of the reissue appears to be that, as the original patent shows a special device for supporting a special arrangement of rakes, such device being located on a particular part of the platform other than and not possible to be a part of the finger-beam, he can claim in a reissue any device for supporting a revolving rake, even one located on the finger-beam. To carry out this view the word "finger-beam" is interpolated in the specification in this connection as an addition to the word "platform," and the rake-post is described as being attached to the finger-beam or the platform. But there is an entire absence in the origin al specification and in the reissued specification of any description of any means by which the rake-support can be attached to or mounted on the fingerbeam, or by which the rakes can be made to work with the rake-support in that location, or by which the connecting-rod of the cutters can be free to work with the support so placed. The law of reissues never at any time or under any construction allowed that to be done which has been thus attempted in this case.

The foregoing views apply also to claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19, being all the other claims alleged to have been infringed, and each o which has as an element either a rake or a rake and reel mounted on or attached to the cutting apparatus or the finger-beam.

In the reissue claim 2 is substantially the same as claim 1 of the original; claim 5 (with the interpolation of the finger-beam) is intended to take the place of claim 2 of the original, and claim 18 corresponds with claim 3 of the original. Yet the appellees' machine is not alleged to infringe either claim 2, claim 5, or claim 18 of the reissue, nor does it embrace what was covered by any one of the three claims of the original. As to the yielding belt-tightener of the appellant, which is the subject of clain 3 of the original patent, and is an element in claim 16 of the reissue, the appellees' machine does not employ any device which performs the function of tightening a belt. It uses, to communicate motion from the main axle to the raking apparatus, an old form of chain-belt, composed of square open links connected by loops of metal between the links, and the links arranged to run over sprocket-wheels which have teeth on them corresponding to openings in the links of the chain, and which prevent the chain from slipping on the wheels. As the links of the chain engage positively with the teeth on the sprocket-wheels there is no need of a belt-tightener, as no slackness in the chain can interfere with the driving action. The only function of the appellees' device which holds up by a yielding pressure the under part of the chain-belt is to so guide that part when slack that the teeth on the sprocket-wheels may readily enter the links of the chain. The appellant's belt could not in the same position drive the raking apparatus so as to make it work properly. The appellees, by the use of sprocket-pulleys and a chain, dispense with a tight friction-band, and with a pulley around which the platform vibrates, and with a tightening-pulley. Their arrangement is not an equivalent in mechanism or functions for that of the appellant. It is made an element of claim 11 of the reissue that the point of suspension of the platform to the main frame is carried beyond the rakesupport toward the center of the draft-frame by means described in the specification, so as to prevent a too sudden or abrupt deflection of the rake and reel. The specification of the reissue says that

It is important that the great weight of the rake, finger-beam, and platform sball not cause the draft-frame to tilt over on its right-hand drive-wheels by sudden and abrupt motions, but shall tend to insure a square run of the draft-frame upon the ground during the pitching or rising and falling motions of the finger-beam, platform, and rake, and thus an even and easy draft for the beam be secured.

But the reissue shows the point of suspension of the platform to the main frame as being nearly under the axis on which the rake-arms revolve, and said point is near the vertical plane of the middle of the width of the tread of the drive-wheel which is next to the cutters, s0 that the inner end of the platform is subject to all the vertical motions of such drive-wheel. The point of suspension being in the pathway of the wheel, the rising or falling motion of the wheel must be communicated to that end of the cutters which is next to such wheel. In the appellees' machine the suspension of the platform is made by an arm extending out from the finger-bar or inner shoe to a point about oppo

site the center of the main frame, and which arm is there suspended by a chain to a hook on the frame, so that the weight of the cutting apparatus and rake and inner part of the platform is transferred to nearly a center point between the drive-wheels. The appellant's structure shows no such organization, and does not involve what the appellees have done.

For the foregoing reasons, without considering the many other questions raised in the case, it must be held that the appellant has not established any cause of action against the appellees on the Reissue No. 2,224.

In No. 2,490 the claims in question are these:

1. The combination, in a two-wheeled hinged-joint machine, of a driver's seat mounted upon the main frame, with a raking mechanism mounted upon the fingerbeam, and rotating around a vertical axis, or one nearly so, substantially in the manner described, for the purpose of enabling the driver to ride on the machine while the rake is in motion.

2. The combination, in a two-wheeled hinged-joint machine, of a shoe with a hinged joint in it, with a rake and platform having an extension, J3, and with a draft-frame which sustains the weight of the cutting apparatus and raking apparatus with platform attached at a point between the two drive-wheels.

6. Driving a revolving rake, or a combined revolving rake and reel, which move about a vertical or nearly vertical axis, by a device arranged on the grain side of the inner drive-wheel or inner side of the draft-frame.

7. Making a direct driving connection between a revolving rake, or a combined rake and reel, which move about a vertical or nearly vertical axis, and the inner end of the main-frame axle of the draft-frame.

9. The combination of a quadrant platform, binged finger-beam, revolving rake, and a driver's seat supported by the main frame.

The original patent (No. 40,481) says that the improvements covered by it consist. first, in a peculiar construction and combination of frame, gearing, and double driving-wheels; second, in a device for affording protection to the main crank-shaft and strengthening the main frame; third, in the use of a movable tongue; fourth, in a device for permitting the finger-beam to turn freely on its own axis. There were only four claims in No. 40,481-one covering each of said four features as follows:

1. The main frame and gear-frame A A, constructed as described, open at each end when used in combination with shafts, gearing, and double driving-wheels arranged and operating substantially as and for the purposes specified.

2. The flange a, cast or formed upon the gear-frame for the combined purposes of strengthening the latter and protecting the crank-shaft E, as herein before explained 3. The movable tongues K, adapted to be attached to the frame on either side of the wheel B', and employed to support or raise the inner end of the beam.

4. Attaching the shoe to the drag-bar by a transverse swivel-joint, to permit the finger-beam to turn its axis to elevate or depress the joints of the fingers, or to fold the beam against the frame for transportation, when combined with bracing-guides A', substantially as herein described.

Every one of the four claims of No. 40,481-the iron frame cast in one piece, the flange, the movable tongue, and the transverse swivel-joint— is omitted from the reissue, and there are no corresponding claims.

The rake-support is of the same form and in the same location as in No. 35,315, inclined and mounted on the platform, and not on the finger. beam, and the inner end of the platform is suspended on the main frame in the same way as in No. 35,315. The specification of No. 40,481 says: On the inner side of the grain-platform, near the heel of the finger-beam, is firmly mounted a post, R, which may incline over toward the main frame, as shown in Fig. 1.

This passage negatives the idea of mounting the post on the fingerbeam, and draws a distinction between the platform and the fingerbeam as a location for the attachment of the post. The only mention of a driver's seat in No. 40,481 is this:

W represents the driver's seat.

In the specification of the reissue the following language is found!

My first improvement consists in the combination, in a two-wheeled hinged-joint machine, of a driver's seat mounted upon the main frame, with a raking mechanism mounted upon the finger-beam, and rotating on a vertical axis, or one nearly so, substantially as hereinafter described, for the purpose of enabling the driver to ride upon the machine while the rake is in operation.

Again, after describing the construction and arrangement of the rake or reel arms, which are the same as in No. 35,315:

By this means the rake and reel arms will stand high enough above the draft-frame on the inner side of the machine, to move clear of the driver, who sits upon the machine in a seat, W, which is mounted upon the main frame, as shown, or in any other position on the frame that will give the greatest convenience and advantage from his weight and use of his hands in the management of the machine.

Again:

From the foregoing description it will be seen that my invention enables me to combine in a self-raking harvester all the advantages derived from the two-wheeled hinged-joint machine, and still use a rake that turns about an axis or revolves entirely about the same, and at the same time have the driver or manager ride upon the main or draft frame in such a position that his weight may aid in counterbalancing the weight of the rake and platform, and his hands may be conveniently employed for controlling the machine.

As to claim 1 of the reissue, although there is in No. 40,481 a driver's seat mounted on the main frame, it is not in such a position, nor can it be placed on the frame described in such a position, that the driver can ride on the seat while the appellant's rake is in operation. The appellee's raking apparatus has been above described. The appellant's raking apparatus is like that of No. 35,315 and of reissue No. 2,224. If the appellant's raking apparatus were substituted in the appellees' machine for their raking apparatus, no person could ride on the driver's seat located anywhere on the frame of the appellees' machine as it is constructed, with the rake in operation. The seat shown in the drawings of No. 2,490 is mounted on a portion of the frame which extends to the rear of the main axle, and the seat itself is shown as placed in the rear of said axle. Consequently, a driver located on said seat would add his weight on the same side of the main axle on which the raking apparatus is mounted, so that the idea of any counterbalancing-weight from the position of the driver is negatived by the arrangement. In the ap