Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/865

 858 rESEBAL SEPOBTEB. �stantially as set forth in the patent; that the came, or substantially the same, things claimed in the patent as new, or material or substantial, parts thereof, were long prier to the supposed invention of the said Eoberts known by and used at certain places designated by persons whose names are given, and that they were described in certain letters patent specified^ and in certain printed publications. �Such are the defences set np against the bill of the com- plainants, and a very elaborate argument has been submitted in support of them. It must be admitted that the answer, so far as it relates to the process patent, is exoeedingly fulL It avers almost everything that may in any case be relied upon as a defence to the charge of infringing a patent, but most of its allegations are totally unsustained by anything in th» record. They have not been insisted upon in the argument, and some of them have been expresaly disclaimed. They ■will, therefore, require only a passing notice. �First, as to those which relate to the validity of the patent. There is no evidence to sustain the averment that the inven- tion was in public use or on sale more than two years prior to Eoberts' application for a patent, which was in 1864. The proof is directly to the contrary, and the averment is incon- sistent with another allegation contained in the answer, to- wit, that at the time of filing his application he had never reduced to practice his supposed improvement or invention. �Nor is there anything to sustain the assertions of the answer that the patentee was guilty of fraud in this, that for the purpose of deceiving the public he made his application for the re-issue to contain less than the whole truth relative to his invention, and also that, for the same purpose, he made it to contain more than is necessary to produce the desired effect, or the alleged useful resuit. Such averments tend to awaken a suspicion that the defendant mistrusted having any substantial defence. �Equallyunfoundedis the defence that the description of the invention in the Epecification is not sufiQciently full, clear and exact to enable any person skilled in the art to which it apper- tains, or with which it is most closely connee.ted, to use it. ����