The claims of the patent are as follows: "Firstly, the shoe, A, and sole, B, both being constructed and adapted to each other substantially as described, so that the sole can have a lateral rocking movement on the shoe, for the purposes specified; secondly, the combination of shoe, A, sole, B, clevis, D, and bolt, G, the whole being constructed and arranged substantially as specified." It is stipulated that neither of the two brake-shoes of the defendant infringes the first claim of the patent, for the reason assigned in the stipulation, that neither of them has the lateral rocking motion described in the patent, although it is stipulated, as to one of them, that it is constructed in all respects like that described in the patent, except that the shoe and the sole are fitted to each other so strongly as to have no rocking motion. 1. The first question presented for decision, on the stipulation, is as to whether the lateral rocking motion forms a part of the second claim of the patent. The circuit court held that the second claim did not embody, as an essential element, the lateral rocking motion, and that such element need not be found in a car-brake shoe in order to make it an infringement of the second claim. The view urged on the part of the defendant is that the combination of the shoe, the sole, the clevis, and the bolt cannot, as a whole, be "constructed and arranged substantially as specified," if the whole is not so constructed and arranged as to admit of the lateral rocking motion, and that there is no suggestion in the specification of any construction or arrangement in which the sole has not a lateral rocking motion on the shoe. We think that the circuit court was correct in its construction of the second claim, on the record before it. The first part of the invention is stated in the specification to be the peculiar manner of constructing the shoe proper and the sole in two parts, in such a way that the sole can accommodate itself to the wheel by reason of its having a lateral rocking motion on the shoe proper. That is the subject-matter of the first claim. The second part of the invention, or, as the specification says, the second improvement in the invention, is stated to consist in the peculiar combination of the shoe proper, the sole, the clevis, and the bolt, the clevis suspending the shoe and its sole to the truck, and the bolt securing the clevis to the shoe proper and that to the sole. The combination of the mode of suspending by the clevis with the mode of securing by the bolt is the same, whether the sole has a lateral rocking motion or not. That combination, as a whole, is constructed and arranged substantially as specified, even where there is no lateral rocking motion to the sole. The words "substantially as specified" mean "substantially as specified in regard to the combination which is the subject of the claim." The adaptation of the shoe proper and the sole to each other in such way as to produce or allow of the lateral rocking motion was the subject of the first claim. The combination formed by the peculiar arrangement of the clevis and the bolt in reference to the shoe proper and the sole is a combination which has no effect to produce or prevent the lateral rocking motion; and the stipulation states that this combination can be used and constructed exactly as described in the patent when the shoe proper and the sole are so snugly fitted together that the sole has no rocking motion. In consonance with this view, the specification and the claims maintain a distinction between the arrangement for the rocking motion and the manner of combining together the shoe proper, the sole, the clevis, and the bolt. The stipulation declares that when the combination of the second claim is made there may be a lateral rocking motion in the sole or there may not, for it states that the exact structure of the patent may be copied and yet the fitting of the sole to the shoe proper may be so snug that there may be no lateral rocking motion in the sole, and so no infringement of the first claim. Hence. a loose fitting of the same parts in the same structure would produce a lateral rocking motion and an infringement of the first claim. There is no suggestion that the combination of the second claim was not new; and there being nothing shown in the state of the art which requires any such con struction of the second claim as that contended for by the defendant, and it being fairly susceptible of the opposite construction, and the latter being one which is commensurate with the real invention embraced in the second claim, and one which prevents the real substance of that invention from being bodily appropriated by an infringer, it is proper to give the claim such a construction. 2. The next question raised by the stipulation is as to whether there is any patentable novelty in the second claim, on such a construction. No question of novelty is raised in the answer, and nothing is introduced in evidence on that subject, or on the state of the art, except what is found in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the stipulation. The opinion of the circuit court, which is set forth in the record, speaks of "the various patents that have been put in evidence," but none such are before us; and the brief of the appellee states that the model marked "Defendant's Exhibit C," (mentioned in paragraph 7 of the stipulation,) "has been selected, as the nearest approach to the patented invention, from a large number used in the court below." This would indicate that the full case presented to the court below is not presented here. As, however, the parties to this suit have stipulated as to what the record is, so far as anything in the controversy between them in this suit is concerned, and the stipulation states that it is a stipulation for the purposes of this suit and no other; and the clerk of the circuit court certifies the transcript to be "a true, correct, and complete transcript of the record of all the proceedings" had in the circuit court in this suit, "as appears from the files and records of" the court remaining in his custody and control, what is furnished to us must be accepted as sufficient for the purposes of this suit, leaving our decision in the case stand, in its bearing in respect to other suits on the same patent, with only that weight which is due to it in view of the manner in which the case is presented in the record. The brake-shoe described in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the stipulation, and shown in defendant's Exhibit C, it is very clear does not contain what is covered by the second claim of the patent, as we have defined it, or destroy its patentable novelty. Bing accomplishes by one bolt what required three bolts in the prior structure. His whole structure can be taken off from the clevis by removing the one bolt, while in the prior structure it required the removal of two bolts to take of the sole from the shoe proper, and the removal of a third bolt to take off the shoe proper from the clevis 3. On the foregoing views, it is admitted by paragraph 10 of the stipulation that the first of defendant's brake-shoes infringes the second claim, and there must be a decision, as to that shoe, in favor of the plaintiff. 4. The only remaining question is as to whether the defendant's other brake-shoe, Exhibit B, is, in its mechanical construction, substantially the same as the combination described or shown in the second claim. In the Bing shoe-brake, the clevis is a three-sided structure, the two lower ends of which embrace the two lugs of the shoe proper, and the bolt passes through the lower end of one arm of the clevis, then through one of the lugs on the shoe proper, then through the lugs on the sole, then through the other lug on the shoe proper, and then through the lower end of the other arm of the clevis, and the sole cannot be removed without first removing the bolt, because the lug on the sole fits in between the lugs on the shoe proper. In the defendant's structure there is no bolt-hole through the lug on the sole, but there is a curved depression made in its top, in which the curved lower end of the clevis rests. The clevis does not have two arms, the lower ends of which embrace the lugs of the shoe proper, and the bolt goes through one of those lugs, then through a hole in the lower end of the clevis, (the clevis being a vertical piece without arms, and not three-sided,) and then through the other one of those lugs, but the bolt does not go through the lug on the sole. That lug is kept in place by the pressure on it of the curved lower end of the clevis, which cannot move out of position, because the bolt goes through it and holds it. The bolt alone, without the clevis, will not confine the lug on the sole. The lug on the sole cannot be removed until the bolt is removed and the clevis is detached. The shoe proper, the sole, and the clevis are combined by the single bolt which secures together the clevis, the shoe proper, and the sole. The bolt and the clevis perform the same office in the two structures, and the mechanical differences are merely formal and not substautial. The combination consists of the same four parts, differing only in form. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed. (110 U. S. 131) BUSSEY and another v. EXCELSIOR MANUf'g Co.1 (January 21, 1884.) 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-COOKING STOVE-INFRINGEMENT. The first four claims of reissued letters patent No. 3,815, granted to Esek Bussey and Charles A. McLeod, February 1, 1870, for a "cooking-stove," the original patent, No. 56,686, having been granted to said Bussey, as inventor, July 24, 1866, and reissued to him, as No. 3,649, September 28, 1869, namely: "(1) A diving-flue cookingstove with the exit-flue so constructed as to inclose on the sides and bottom the culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir, B; (2) a diving-flue cooking-stove with the exit-flue constructed across the bottom, and upon the rear upright side of the culinary or hot-water reservoir, B; (3) a diving-flue cooking-stove constructed with an exit-passage, F, below the top of the oven, and an exit-flue, E, E', in combination with an uncased reservoir, B, attached to the rear of the stove, and placed just above such exit-passage, and so arranged that the gases of combustion, in passing through such exit-flue, will impinge upon or come in direct contact with said reservoir, substantially as and for the purposes herein before specified; (4) an exit-passage, F, constructed in the rear of a diving-flue cooking-stove and below the top of the oven, in combination with an uncased reservior, B, attached to the rear of the stove, the bottom of which reservoir is also below the top of the oven, and so arranged that the gases of combustion will come in contact with, and heat such reservoir by, a direct draft from the fire-box to the smoke-pipe," are limited to a structure in which the front of the reservoir has no air space in front of it, and in which the exit-flue does expand into a chamber at the bottom of the reservoir, and in which the vertical part of the exit-flue does not pass up through the reservoir. Hence, those claims are not infringed by a stove in which, although there are three flues, and an exit-passage below the top of the oven, and a reservoir, the bottom of which is below the top of the oven, no part of the rear-end vertical plate is removed so as to allow the gases of combustion to come into direct contact with the front of the reservior, nor is any such plate employed as the plate, w, w, of the patent, but there is a dead air-space between the rear plate of the flue and the front of the reservior, and the exit-flue is not a narrow one, carried across the middle of the bottom of the reservior, as in the patent, but the products of combustion, on leaving the flue space, pass into a chamber beneath the reservoir, the area of which is coextensive with the entire surface of the bottom of the reservoir, and the vertical passage out of such chamber is not one outside of the rear of the reservoir, but is one in and through the body of the reservoir, and removable with it. 2. SAME-PATENT No. 142,933-NOVELTY. The claim of letters patent No. 142,933, granted to David H. Nation and Ezekiel C. Little, as inventors, September 16, 1873, for an "improvement in reservoir cooking. stoves," namely: "(1) The combination, with the back-plate, I, of the cooking stove, A, of the reservoir, C, arranged on a support about midway between the top and bottom plates of the stove, and the air-chamber, b, between the stove back and reservoir front, open at the top, and communicating with the air in the room, 'S. C. 1 Fed. Rep. 640. substantially as and for the purposes set forth; (2) the combination, with the stove, A, and reservoir, C, of the small opening, a, the sheet-flue, G, under the entire bot tom of the reservoir, and the small exit-passage or pipe, E, all substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth," are void for want of novelty. 3. SAME-PATENT No. 142,934--NOVELTY. The claims of letter patent No. 142,934, granted to said Nation and Little, September 16, 1873, for an "improvement in reservoir cooking-stoves," namely: “(1) The detachable base-pan or flue-shell, D, attached to the body at a point near the center of the back-plate of the stove, by means of hooks, a, a, cast on the base-pan, and pins, b, b, on the stove body, substantially for the purposes herein set forth; (2) the portable reservoir, F, with the flue, E, in the rear side, in combination with the portable base-pan or flue-shell, D, substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth; (3) the combination with a three-flue stove having damper, H, arranged as described, of the portable base-pan or flue-shell, D, and warming-closet, G, all substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth," are void for want of novelty. 4. SAME-INVENTION-CLAIM 1. There was no invention in claim 1 in using to attach the base-pan, an old mode used in attaching other projecting parts of the stove. 5. SAME CLAIMS 2 AND 3. Claims 2 and 3 are merely for aggregations of parts, and not for patentable combinations. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Chas. J. Hunt, for Bussey and another. Samuel A. Duncan, for Excelsior Manuf'g Co. BLATCHFORD, J. This is a suit in equity brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri, by Esek Bussey and Charles A. McLeod against the Excelsior Manufacturing Company of St. Louis, a corporation, for the infringement of three several letters patent, being (1) reissue No. 3,815, granted to the plaintiffs, February 1, 1870, for a "cookingstove," the original patent, No. 56,686, having been granted to said Bussey, as inventor, July 24, 1866, and reissued to him, as No. 3,649, September 28, 1869; (2) letters patent No. 142,933, granted to David H. Nation and Ezekiel C. Little, as inventors, September 16, 1873, for an improvement in reservoir cooking-stoves;" (3) letters patent No. 142,934, granted to said Nation and Little, as inventors, September 16, 1873, for an "improvement in reservior cooking-stoves." After an answer and proofs the circuit court made a decree finding no infringement of No. 3,815 and dismissing the bill as to that patent; decreeing that the other two patents were valid and had been infringed as to all their claims; and awarding a perpetual injunction as to those claims, and an accounting before a master. The master reported one cent damages. The plaintiffs excepted to the report, claiming $14,972 damages. The court confirmed the report and made a decree accordingly, which also provided that the entire costs to be taxed in the suit should be divided and that the plaintiffs should pay five-sevenths of them and the defendant two-sevenths. Both parties appealed to this court. The specification of No. 3,815 says: "Figure 1 is a side elevation; Figure 2, a rear elevation; Figure 3, a plan; Figure 4, a vertical section at the line, 2, 2; Figure 5, a front view of a section at the line, y, y; and Figure 6, a top view of a partial section at the line, x, x, all of a cooking-stove embodying my said invention, like parts being marked by the same letters in all the figures, and the arrows therein being indicative of the courses in which the gases of combustion pass through the stove. One part of my invention consists in arranging a culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir in the rear of the oven of a diving-flue cooking-stove, with an exit-flue extending down the front under the bottom and up the rear of the said reservoir, substantially as hereinafter described and speciñed. It also consists in arranging a culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir in the rear of the oven of a diving-flue cooking-stove, with an exit-flue leading from some point in the rear of the vertical flue or flues below the top of the said oven, and continuing under the bottom and up the rear side of said reservoir, substantially as hereinafter described and specified. It also consists in the arrangement of a diving-flue cooking-stove, with an exit passage constructed in the vertical rear flue or flues thereof, and below the top of the oven, in such a manner that the gases of combustion, after passing through such exit-passage, will impinge upon or come in contact with the bottom or sides of a reservoir placed in the rear of the stove, and just above said exit-passage, substantially as hereinafter described and specified. It also consists in the employment of a thin plate or sheet of metal between the front plate of the reservoir and the rear-end vertical flues of the said stove, substantially as shown and specified. In illustration of my invention, the aforesaid drawings represent a cooking-stove having an oven, A, a culinary boiler or hot-water reservoir, B, arranged opposite to the rear upright side or end, d, of the oven, and an exit-flue, E, E', extended from the central vertical flue, K, of said stove at a point below the top of the oven, under or across the bottom, y, of the reservoir, and from thence up along the rear upright side of said boiler or reservoir to the draft-pipe, I. For the purpose of allowing |