Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/715

 708 PEDEEAL REPORTEE. �solve the camphor in the alcohol and then the xyloidine îs put into the solution, or whether either the alcohol or the camphor is first mixed with the xyloidine and then the third substance is added. The bringing of the three together, causing the xyloidine to be dissolved or softened, so as to be more easy of conversion or working into compounds or arti- cles containing xyloidine, is the invention. Making use of the solvent power of camphor and alcohol, when in the pres- ence of each other and of the xyloidine, is the essence of the invention. The use of the camphor and the alcohol in about equal proportions is net of the essence of the invention. They are stated by the patentee to be useful in these propor- tions. But the evidence shows that the real invention was the discovery of the fact that camphor and alcohol, when united, would be a solvent of xyloidine. �The novelty of the invention of this solvent is attacked, but without Buccess. The evidence is vohiminous, and has been carefuUy considered, with the resuit that the defendant has failed to show want of novelty. The prior patents adduced and examined are the English patent to Cutting, No. 1,638, of 1854; and the English patents to Parka, No. 2,359, of 1856, No. 2,675, of ■ 1864, No. 1,313, of 1865, No. 1,695, of 1867, and No. 1,614, of 1868. Park's pamphlet of 1867, and Gamielin's Hand-book of Chemistry, of 1860, have also been considered, as well as the English patent to the plaintiff, No. 2,666, of 1867. No other anticipation than the above seems to be considered by the defendant's expert, and he does not allude to the pamphlet. Another defence relied on is that one Parks communicated to the plaintiff, in England, the knowledge that alcohol and camphor united were a solvent of xyloidine, and that the plaintiff never made the invention himself. On the whole evidence, the defendant has failed to establish this defence. �The other patent involved is No. 101,175, granted to the plaintiff March 22, 1870, for an "improvement in the man- ufacture of xyloidine and its compounds." There are five claims in the patent. The second alone is alleged to have been infringed. The specification says: "The second part ����