Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/349

 covers over ihe upper millstone, provided With a circuiar opening over the eye of the upper stone. Thia retables the air in the plaiatiff's arrangement to pass over the top of the upper stone, and through the annular space between the outer edges of the atones and the inside of the ourb, and thence, with the meal, through the closed meal spouts, into and through the closed meal chest. �In the Eobinson patent the small orifice in the eenter of the top of the curb is tightly stopped up by a tube whioh extends downward into the eye of the upper stone, the outside of the tube fiUing the interior of the eye. The objeot must have been, as the necessary operation was, to prevent the passage of air over the top of the upper stone, inside. of the curb, and to force it to go, down into the eye and between the grinding faces of the atones. Thus, the operation is the reverse of that in the plaintiff 's patent. Moreover, Eobinson has no current of air traversing the length of the meal chest and carryingofif the moisture which arises from the meal as the sorew eon- veyor operates upon it. The elements combined in Eobin- son's are not combined in the same wayas in the plaintiff's patent, to produce the same resuit by the same mode of opera- tion. �As to the Cartier arrangement, which is theone most earn- estly pressed, I have examined with care ail the evidence in regard to it. It would be unprofitable to discuss sueh evi- dence minutely. It is sufficient to say that the description and drawingsof Cartier do not fumish such clear and defi- nite information as to enable a skilled person, beyond any rea- Bonable doubt, by foUowing them, without aid from anything not known when they were made, to construet an apparatus like the plaintiff's. They. do not meet the requirement of law in regard to what is necessary, in a prior description; and drawings, to defeat a subsequent patent. They are neither fuU nor clear nor exact. �The only other point urged in defende ia that the original patent was granted to John Denchfield, and that the re-issu^ is to John DeMchfteld, and is therçifore void< Th* r^-issued patent status, that the ongin9^yfa,s issued tpi"hifli/' thatis. ����