Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/292

 278 FEDBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �this re-issue was granied, the specification contaihs a description of the invention, and of "the manner and procesa of making, construct- ing, compounding, and using it," in such terme as to enable any per- Bon skilled in the art to which it appertains to make, construct, com- pound, and use it ; and, even regarding the case as one of a machine, the specification explains the principleof the machine ^ithin the mean- ing of that section, although the scientific or phySical principle on which the process acts, when the pump is used with the air-tight tube, is net explained. An inventor may be ignorant of the scientific principle, or he may think he knows it, and yet be uncertain, or he may be con- fi|4ent as to what it is, and others may think differently. AU this is immaterial, if, by the specification, the thing to be done is so set forth that it can be reproduced. , �This re-issue was also adjudicated upon by Judges^Dillon and Nel- son,, in Andrews^. Wright, 13 0. G. 969, and the claim waS con- strued to be for a process snob as I have defined it to be. Under this construction the defendant has infringed by usiiig a pump in a driven well constructed in a house hired by him, to obtain a supply of water for the ;USa of hia family, although he may not have paid for driving the well or have procured it to be driven. Sueh use of the well was a use of the patented process. �The invention of Green is shown to have preceded any invention made by Suggett, and described in bis patent of Ma'rch 29, 186e. The evidence also shows that none of the defences set up in the answer are established. The conclusions arrived at in the decision in An- drews Y. Carman are supporfced by the testimonyin this case. Those conclusions relate to the novelty of Green's invention, and to the question of the dedieation and abandonment of the invention to the public by Green.- This latter Question must be decided under the laws in force in 1866, when the original patent was applied for. No abandonment or dedieation of the invention to the public by Green is shown. The construction of the well on the fair ground at Cort- land, under the direction of Green, and its use, by his consent, was an experimental use, to test it. The rule laid down in Andrews v. Carman, as to the proper construction of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1839, (5 St. at Large, 354,) as deduced from prior rulings, was- that that section had no efffict to invalidate a patent unless there was proof gf actual abandonment or of a use of the invention, with the knowledge andaliowance' of the inveutor, more than two years prior to his application for his patent. It was held in that case, not ouly that there. ^waa no evidence of an;-' use or sale of the ��� �