Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/604

 592 FEDERAL BSPOBTEB. �English patent No. 10,774, to Thomas B. WllUams, dated July 21, 1845, specification enrolled January 20, 1846 ; what he calls " British Jet- tera patent No. 55, of 1862, to John Btenhouse," a copy of which is not furnished ; United States patent No. 97,893, granted December 14, 1869, (o Cheney and Milliken, assignees of John Stenhouae, and patented in England January 8, 1862; English patent No. 5,849, to Thomas Cobb, eated September 15, 1829, specification enrolled March 15, 1830; and ^Jnited States patent No. 157,068, granted November 24, 1874, to Richard J. Edwards. �But the only statement made in reference to those patents as affeoting claims 2, 3, and 5, of re-i6sue No. 8,460, is that the plaintiff's scraper, x, is old and is shown in those pat- ents. In regard to claim 1, the statement is that "the de- vice" is old and is shown in those patents. No reasons are given. What it is in those patents that is referred to is not pointed out. The scraper, s, is not claimed by the plaintiff by itself. It is not asserted that' either claim 2 or claim 3 or claim 5 is shown or described in any of those patents. The burden is on the defendant to make out anticipation. The plaintiff's expert states that he does not find claim 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 in the Williams' patent, No. 10,774, and he gives his reasons. He examines an English patent, No. 1,379, granted to one Edwards in 1872, (which is understood to show what is shown in the United States Edwards' patent, No. 157,068,) and says that it does not anticipate claim 1 or 2 or 3 or 5, and he gives his reasons. He also alludes to the Gobb patent, and says that it is for making roofing, and to the Stenhouae patent, No. 97,893, and says that it shows no machine at all. He also says that neither Stenhouse, nor Cobb, nor Edwards, shows a heated cylinder acting to beat wax and to apply the wax to paper prepara tory to the subse- quent drawing of the wax into the paper. Certain it is that no patent referred to by the defendant's expert affects claim» 2, 3, or 5, and claim 1 must stand, so far as this motion is con- cerned. �It is quite clear, from the history of the article made by the plaintiii's machine and process, that that article was not capable of beiag made by any machine or mechanical process before made known. The article existed before and was & very desirable article, but it was made by hand and was too ��� �