The fourth claim is said by the complainants to be "very similar" to the first, and to "cover the same mechanism," though certain of its elements are differently described. These statements are clearly correct, and render separate discussion of the fourth claim unnecessary. As to claims 2 and 3 of the first patent, which are as follows: “2. In a machine for winding decorative films into a package roll, the combination with means for winding up the strip and film in a package roll, of a bar of wax or other suitable material, in contact with which the strip is drawn, to receive a coating adapted to secure the proper adhesion of the film to the strip, and means for applying the film to the strip, substantially as described. "3. In a machine for winding decorative films into a package roll, the combination with means for drawing the strip forward, of a pad for spreading the powder upon one side of the strip, and a bar of wax or other suitable material, in contact with which the strip is drawn to receive a coating upon the opposite side of the strip, which is adapted to secure the proper adhesion of the decorative film thereto, substantially as described." These claims are not limited to machines for forming metallic films into strips, which was Coe's important invention. They relate to "machines for winding decorative films into a package roll." The prior art shows several machines which come close to the combinations specified in these claims. Each of the claims includes as one element "a bar of wax or other suitable material in contact with which the strip is drawn to receive a coating" adapted to secure the proper adhesion of the film to the strip. The appellants contend: (1) That they do not infringe these claims; and (2) that said claims are void for lack of novelty. As to 1, the appellants' machine does not contain any "bar of wax," or any other arrangement for "coating" the strip of paper for the purpose of making it adhesive. It does have, in substantially the same place as the wax roll, a revolving round brush of wire which brushes against the surface of the strip to which the gold is to be attached. The function of the brush was not satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Presumably it serves some purpose; it probably roughens that side of the paper, and perhaps also removes accidental dust or powder. [4] It was necessary that one side of the strip should be more adhesive to the gold than the other side, in order that the film might unroll without tearing. Coe secured this result by applying an adhesive coating on one side, and powder (which is a nonadhesive) on the other side. Gold leaf adheres better to a rough surface than to a smooth one. Roughening the surface of the paper by the brush in the appellants' machine serves the same purpose as coating it with wax in the complainant's, i. e., makes it more adhesive to the gold leaf. The wax cylinder and the wire brush, therefore, accomplish the same result, but in essentially different ways. The appellees contend that this identity of result is sufficient to constitute the wire brush an equivalent of the bar of wax and adhesive coating of the claims under discussion. But we think mere identity of result is not sufficient. There must be the employment of "substantially the same means to accomplish the same result." Machine Co. v. Lancaster, 129 U. S. 263, 290, 9 Sup. Ct. 299, 32 L. Ed. 715. This is especially true where, as here, of several methods by which the result may be secured, the claim specifically describes one. As Judge Colt said in the Edison Light Case: "If the claim had been limited to conductors of platinum wire, as the filament is limited to carbon, the case might be different." Edison Electric Light Co. v. Boston Incandescent Lamp Co. (C. C.) 62 Fed. 398. "On the other hand, it is true that words and phrases which might have been omitted on the presumption that they relate to nonessentials may be introduced in such direct and positive manner as to leave the courts no option except to regard them as affecting the objects and limitations of the instrument in question." Putnam, J., Reece Button-Hole Machine Co. v. Globe Button-Hole Machine Co., 61 Fed. 958, 961, 10 C. C. A. 194. Granting that the patentee is entitled to a liberal interpretation of the rule as to equivalents, we do not think that the wire brush of the appellants is the equivalent of the "bar of wax" and the "coating" specified in these claims. We therefore, without deciding the question as to validity, hold them not infringed. Westinghouse v. Boyden Co., ubi supra; American Crayon Co. v. Sexton, 139 Fed. 564, 71 C. C. A. 548. [5] As to the second patent, No. 848,883: This patent is for a package roll of metallic leaf. The contention of the complainants is that the roll of paper and film produced by the appellants' machine is covered by the single claim of this patent, which is as follows: "A package roll of metallic leaf having its supporting strip provided with a smooth surface at one side, and a comparatively rough surface at the other, whereby the metallic leaf may be suitably held for delivery upon unwinding the roll." The prior art shows many different patents for rolled and flat packages of paper and gold leaf. The problem was to give one side of the paper a surface to which the gold would adhere, and the other side a surface to which the gold would not adhere; it was also necessary that the adhesive side should not cling to the gold so strongly as to prevent it from being readily removed therefrom. The purpose of the patent is, as therein stated, "to dispense with the use of both adhesive and non-adhesive materials in connection with the supporting strip of a package roll," and to avoid "the troublesome employment of wax or powder." This is accomplished by making one surface of the paper rough and the other surface smooth, and taking advantage of the "natural tendency of metallic leaf to cling to the rough side and leave the smooth side" of the paper strip. Considering the claim of the patent in the light of the specifications and of the prior art, it is clear that it was intended to cover a package roll in which the surfaces of the paper are such that neither an adhesive substance nor powder is necessary. The appellants unquestionably make use of a rough surface on the paper to cause the gold to adhere thereto; there is no evidence that they use the smooth surface to make the paper nonadherent. It is undisputed that the appellants use powder to secure nonadhesion, and it does not appear that the use of such power is unnecessary. Assuming that the patent is valid, it is not entitled to a construction which shall include the appellants' roll, but is limited to rolls in which neither adhesive nor powder is necessary, and is not infringed by the appellants' roll. The decree of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to enter a decree dismissing the bill, with costs; and the appellants recover costs of appeal. MOLINE PLOW CO. v. ROCK ISLAND PLOW CO. 1. PATENTS (§ 328*)-VALIDITY-DISK HARROWS-ANTICIPATION. The Lindgren patent No. 799,012, for an improvement in disk harrows, claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, providing a rectangular frame and saddle-plate between the front and rear bars of the frame and a mounting of the operative parts thereon, with compensating mechanism for avoiding tortional strain on the draw rod, held valid, not anticipated and infringed. 2. PATENTS (§ 73*)—INVENTION-DATE-ANTICIPATINg Patent. One who seeks to carry the date of invention back of the date of an anticipating patent assumes the burden of proof and must establish an earlier date by evidence so cogent as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the court that the transaction occurred substantially as stated. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 64; Dec. Dig. § 73.*] 3. PATENTS (§ 73*)-INVENTION-DATE-PROOF. Where an invention is claimed to antedate an anticipating patent and is exhibited in a drawing or model, the date of the invention may be regarded as the date of the completion of a model or drawing sufficiently plain to enable those skilled in the art to understand the invention. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 64; Dec. Dig. § 73.*] 4. PATENTS (§ 29*)-"INVENTION." To constitute an invention in the sense in which the word is employed in the patent act, the party alleged to have produced it must have proceeded so far as to have reduced his idea to practice and have embodied it in some distinct form. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Patents, Dec. Dig. § 29.*] 5. PATENTS (§ 73*)-INVENTION-DATE-EVIDENCE. While parol evidence of priority of invention under an anticipating patent is insufficient alone, yet parol evidence in addition to documentary evidence, consisting of entries in business records and books of complainant, showing the existence of complainant's invention and reduction of complainant's device to practice prior to the date of the anticipating patent, was sufficient. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. § 64; Dec. Dig. § 73.*] Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Southern District of Illinois; J. Otis Humphrey, Judge. Bill in equity by the Moline Plow Company against the Rock Island Plow Company, for infringement of the Lindgren disk harrow patent, No. 799,012. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed with directions. For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes Samuel W. Banning, of Chicago, Ill. (Thomas A. Banning, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant. Charles C. Bulkley and Harold A. Swenarton, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee. Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges. KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judge. Appellant filed its bill in the District Court to restrain infringement of claims 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 of patent No. 799,012 issued to appellant on September 5, 1905, as assignee of Alexus C. Lindgren, for an improvement in disk harrows. On final hearing the District Court found against appellant on the question of infringement and dismissed the bill for want of equity, which finding and decree is assigned for error. The claims sued on read as follows: "3. In a disk harrow, the combination with the frame, of a disk gang adjustable with relation to the frame transversely of the line of draft, and movable around a vertical axis, a hand-lever mounted on the frame in advance of the disk gang, and rearwardly-extending connections between the hand-lever and disk gang for turning the latter on its vertical axis, said connections being adjustable at the rear and relatively to the disk gang in the direction of the transverse adjustment of the gang. "4. In a disk harrow the combination with the frame, of a disk gang adjustable therein transversely of the line of travel, and movable around a vertical axis, a hand-lever movable longitudinally, a connecting-rod extending longitudinally rearwardly therefrom, and adjustable connections between the rod and disk gang. "5. In a disk harrow the combination with a frame, of a disk gang adjustable therein transversely of the line of travel and mounted to turn on a vertical axis, a hand-lever for controlling said axial movement, a rod extending rearwardly from the hand-lever, and a link having its inner end jointed to said rod and its outer end connected adjustably with the disk gang. "7. In a disk harrow the combination with the frame member having front and rear frame-bars, of a saddle-plate extending longitudinally of the machine between said bars and adjustable vertically around a fore-and-aft axis extending longitudinally of said plate, and provided with a vertical bearing-socket, a disk-yoke formed with a vertical trunnion seated in the socket, means for connecting said parts together, and disks carried by the yoke. "9. In a disk harrow the combination with the front and rear frame-bars, of a horizontally-arranged saddle-plate sustained by said bars and rotatably adjustable at its outer end around a fore-and-aft axis extending longitudinally of the machine, a clamping device at the opposite end of the plate for holding it in its different adjusted positions, and a disk gang carried by the saddleplate." The device of the patent relates to a reversible disk harrow, largely used in cultivating the soil in orchards and other lands where the space between the rows is narrow and where different adjustments are required. It consists of a rectangular or transversely-elongated frame, to the widely spaced front and rear bars of which a tongue is rigidly attached-saddle-plates on either side of the tongue, which are respectively mounted pivotally, and consequently tiltingly, on and within the front and rear bars, and which carry means for horizontally swinging the disk carriers, levers, and other devices for positioning the disk carriers and disks, and an operator's seat. It is appellant's contention that claims 7 and 9 cover the frame, while claims 3, 4, and 5 have ref The defenses set up are erence to the other elements of the patent. lack of patentable novelty in view of the prior art, and noninfringement. The harrow consists of two distinct parts, one on either side of the tongue. These and the operation of them are exactly alike, and it will be necessary to treat with only one of them. In order to simplify the description of the device, figure 1 of the patent in suit is here reproduced: It was not new with Lindgren to provide a disk harrow producing substantially the results attained by the device of the claims in suit, so that the invention must be sought in the means employed by him. Appellant's harrow has, generally speaking, the following features. in common with the prior art: (1) Its disk gangs are so arranged as to be capable of being adjusted in different angling positions with reference to the forward line of travel of the harrow; (2) the gangs may be tilted toward or away from the center of the harrow; (3) the gangs may be bodily advanced along the front and rear bars toward or away from the tongue or center of the harrow. In the means provided for the accomplishment of these three results, the patentee claims he has |