Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/933

 ■WHITE V. B, P. GLEASON MAKCf'G CO. 91!^ �things substantially as described, it shows a globe-holder with elastic arms fastened to the burner in any suitable manner, as ■well as a globe-holder with elastic arms fastened to a disk to go on the fixtures ; for both are substantially set forth. There could not be a patent for a globe-holder, with elastic arms and another feature combined, with- out describing the other feature as well as the arms, and also claim- ing it as a pari of the invention. The patent cannot be held to cover anything more than a globe-holder with elastic arms, terminat- ing in the curved ends for holding the globe, and a center with an aperture for the gas-burner, as the patentee said In the oatset of his specification, "the same being designed as an improved sabstitute for the rigid holders with retaining sorews heretofore employed." So this exhibit, as it is conceded to be by the brator's 'coansel, fully covers all there is of the orator's invention that is patented. �It is also claimed, in behalf of the orator, that prior knowledge and use of that device are not shown with sufficient certain'ty to~ defeat a patent within the rule applied to this class of cases, and he cites the evidence of the witness Gleason, where he says, with refer- ence to the Exhibit CC: "This particular globe-holder was sold to a man by the name of Brown, and used by him a number of years ; his place of business being in West Houston street, New York," as being the only evidence on the subject. If this was the only evidence it might not be sufficient; but it is not. At another place, in answer to the first cross-question, Gleason says they sold 20 or 30 gross of them in 1871 and in 1872. The witness Daley, a manufacturer and seller of gas-uxtures, says, in answer to the last direct question, that his firm bas purchased and sold them since 1873 ; and the witness Dare, in an answer to the last question put to him, says that those like Exhibit GG in the printed record, obviously from the question mean- ing CC, and GG being a misprint, says that he manufactured them for the defendants either from 1867 or 1868 up to 1875, or in 1868 and 1869, and for four or five years. There is nothing in the case, other than the patent, showing the date of the invention. This evi- dence is not contradicted, and, standing thus, it shows satisfactorily, and beyond any fair or reasonable doubt, that globe-holders like Exhibit CC were well known and in use long before the orator's in- vention, and, in the language of the statute relating to defences, "that he Was not the original and first inventor" "of the thing patented." Section 4920. �Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of complaint, with eostsw ��� �