Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/608

 600 rEDEEAL EKPORTEB. �anthority to amend or alter the specification; and that tho specification had been sufficiently sworn to by the inventor. If the patent is invalid by reason of any or ail of these defects its invalidity is to be determined in a proceeding to set aside the patent by scire facias, or by bill, or information. Sey- mour V. Oshorne, 11 Wall. 7, 96 ; Jackson v. Lawton, 10 John. 23. �The defendants insist in the third place that, in viow of the state of the art, there was an entire lack of inveutiou in the combination which is the subject-matter of the third and only claim which is said to have been infringed, or that the combination was old. The improved press was for litho- graphie printing. The invention recited in the third claim was for the combination of a sheet Hier with an impression cylinder without tapes, and a receiving cylinder provided with grippera and tapes, substaniially as described and specified. The object of the invention was to have the whole width or surface of a sheet of paper printed with heavy color on the impression cylinder, and to be deli\-ered automatically, with- out smuttiug, face side uppermost on the fly board or table. The whole width of the paper is enabled to be printed, because the impression cylinder is without tapes underlying the sheet. The sheet is taken by the grippers of the receiving cylinder and is delivered upon tapes running from the receiving cylin- der over pulleys near the roots of the fly Angers. These tapes are above the fly Angers, and thus prevent the sheet from being smutted in consequence of sliding down the smooth fly frame. When the sheet is in proper position it is automat- ically turned by the fly frame, face side uppermost, upon the table. �If there was invention in this combination, and the patentee was the first inventor, the claim is not invalid upon the ground that the sheet flyer and impression cylinder have no conjoint action, and no active connection to produce a joint resuit. The combination is of the class mentioued in For- bush V. Cook, 2 Fisher, 668, in which case Judge Curtis says : "To make a valid claim for a combination it is not necessary fhat the several elementary parts of the combination should ��� �