Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/782

 EAGLBTON MANUF'g CO. V. WEST, ETC., MANDf'ô 00. 775 �for f urniture seats and beds. It is desirable that such springs should be protected from corrosion, and that they should be Btrong and elastic. The patent is for springs protected by japan, and tempered by the beat used in baking on the japan. It specifies no degrees of beat to be used, except that it is to be sufficient to bake and harden the japan. The evi- dence shows clearly that in coiling the wire of which these springs are made into the shape required, it is weakened by the strain on the outside and the compression on the inner portions, and that its strength and elasticity are restored and improved by subjecting them to beat, which need not -be great enongh to make them limber and to lose their shape, as would be necessary in tempering by the old process ; that the best resuit is produced by beat at about 500 degrees, and that japan may be baked on them by beat at from 200 to 700 degrees, with the facility and rapidity sufficient for manu- facturing establishments, and at still lower beats by taking longer time for the operation. �The oath of Eagleton that he believed himself to be the original and first inventer of the improvement described in his application was made June 26, 1868. He authorized the members of the firm of Munn & Co. to act as his attorneys in presenting the application, and making ail such altera- tions and amendments as might be required, and his applica- tion was filed July 6, 1868. It was rejected, and he was notified by letter, in the care of his attorneys, dated July 10, 1868, of the rejection. He died in February, 1870. The application was renewed as in his name, by the attorneys, December 29, 1870. The specification was amended by them, in his name, October 19, 1871, and again rejected; was amended in like manner November 7, 1871, and was finally granted. �That steel furniture springs of tbis sort, tempered and strengthened in this manner, were known and used by varions persons named in the answer, before the date of the patent, is fuUy and clearly shown by the evidence and not dispute d. If the patent was not aceompanied by the application the date of the patent would be deemed to be the date of the invention. ����