Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/517

 502 FEDERAL REPORTER. �defendant, after insisting strenuously that the passages were in fact used for the purposes of Knibbs' invention, like-wise insist that in view of the existence of these things, if that only should be found, Knibbs only put an old device to a new use, which would not be pat- entable. This presents the question, on this part of the case, whether such prier knowledge and use of a like device, as is found to have been had, will defeat the patent. His invention was not to be used undei all circumstances of the use of the engine. It was for use only in combination with the constant power for a larger discharge, and a restricted discharge. �The second claim of the patent, and the only one in controversy, is for the Connecting passage and valve for the purposes described and set forth, the principal of which purposes was the use in that combi- nation. The statutes providing for defences to suits upon patents require defendants to set forth the names and residences of persons having prior knowledge of the thing patented, and where and by whom it had been used. Eev. St. § 4920. The proof must, of course, correspond with and support these allegations. The proofs in this case do not support the allegation that the persons knowing of and using the Amoskeag engines and the engine Philadelphia, as these persons are found to have known and used them, knew of and used Knibbs' invention. Those connected with the Amoskeag engines used the passage to avoid the pump, and those connected with the Philadelphia used only a part of it at a time, and then in connection only with contrivances for feeding the boiler, and neither of them used it in connection and combination with the working pump and over-pressed hose at all; and they respectively had knowledge coex- tensive with the use they made. They had brought together all the parts necessary to accomplish the resuit he accomplished, but did not know how to use them. This is not the known use required to defeat a patent. Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707. �Wilder's patent is for a two-way valve in combination with apparatus for feeding a steam-boiler with water, by which surplus water is returned to the tank. The combination with which it is made to work is entirely different from that in which this passage and valve are placed, and the working parts are not the same. The same may be said of the patents of Bramah and Duportail. Both were before steam-fire engines, with the necessities of their great and constant motive power, were known. �The facts in regard to use and sale of the invention prior to the application appear, from the evidence, to be that Knibbs was 'the ��� �