Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/606

 594 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ot the surface of roller, a, in order that, where the paper raoves faster than the surface of the roller, a, the roller, a, will spread the paraffine wax in a thin layer upon the paper, hecause the heated wax ia maintained in a fluid condition by the beat of the roller, and the thickness of the layer of wax on the paper to that on the cylinder will be in proportion to the relative apeed of the paper and the roller, a, and, if the wax is to be ap- plied in greater quantities, the surface speed of the roller, a, ia increased so as to be greater than that of the roll of paper, and a thicker layer of wax is applied to the sheet of paper." �Claims 1 and 2, which are those here concerned, are as �follows: �" (1) The method hereia specified, of waxing paper, consisting in drawins; the paper over the surface of a cylinder coated with melted wax at a speed different to the movement of the surface of the cylinder, so as to regulate the thickness of the layer of wax by the relative apeed of the paper to that of the surface of the waxed cylinder, substantially as set forth. (2) The combination, in a machine for waxing paper, of a trough for the wax, a heated cylinder for transferring the wax to the paper, and mechanism for moving the waxing cylinder at a different speed of surface from that of the paper with which it is in contact, substantially as spec- ified." �The plaintiff's expert, in an affidavit made by him Janu- ary 3, 1881, states that the defendanf^s machine before de- scribed, and which the expert says he inspected in operation, in the presence of the defendant, on November 27, 1880, "eontains mechanism for so moving the paper with reference to the cylinder," — that is, as described in No. 209,393, — "and moves it at a faster speed than the cylinder;" and that, therefore, it eontains the subject-matter of claims 1 and 2 of No. 209,393. In another affidavit made by the same expert, on the same day, he says : �" The machine of defendant I saw ia operation at his factory making waxed paper, eontains the diflerentiation of speed claimed by complain- ant as aforesaid, and eontains mechanism therefor, and for producing waxed paper thereby, including the seraper for removing surplus wax from the cylinder." �The defendant, in an afSdavit made January 14, 1881, quotes what the plaintiff's expert says, as above, in his first affidavit, and states that that part of said affidavit in which said expert so states "is not true," and that, "as a matter of fact, in the defendant's machine both the web of paper and the waxing cylinder are riin at the same rate of speed." This ��� �