Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/714

 BOIKIN V. BAEBR. 699 �BoYKiN, Carmee & Co. V. Baker & Co. �(drouit Court, D. Maryland. December 28, 1881.) �1. Lhttbrs Patent — Pertilizikg CoMPOtfND. �Patent No. 206,077, July 16, 1878, ^anted to Boykin, Oarmcr & Co. for an improved fertilizlng compound, hdd to be invalid for waat of any patentaule invention or discovery. �In Eqnity. �Slingluff d Slingluff, for complainants. �Snowden <e Busey, for defendants. �MoBRis, D. J. This bill is filed by the complainants, Boykin, Car- mer & Go., against the defendants, E. J. Baker & Co., for an alleged infringement of patent No. 206,077, granted to the complainants July 16, 1878, upon application dated March 1, 1878, for an im- proved fertilizing compound. The respondents admit that they have been selling the same materials for fertilizing purposea in the same proportions as mentioned in the patented formula, but they claim that they had been doing so long before the date of the patent, and that the patent is invalid for want of novelty. �The compound described in the patent is composed of (1) dis- solved bone; (2) ground plaster; (3) nitrate of soda; (4) sulphate of soda ; (5) sulphate of ammonia ; (6) dry peat muck, unleached ashes, or any refuse matter having fertilizing properties, in the proportions «et forth in the patent. �The proof discloses that a formula for a fertilizer alleged to have been prepared and published by Baron Liebig has been known and in use among farmers and others for 25 or 30 years, and that it yras printed and circulated by both complainants and defendants long prior to the date of the patent. It is identical with the patented formula as to the ingredients, their proportions, and the directions for mixing them, in every respect, except that the Liebig formula, as originally published, called for ground bone instead of dissolved bone, and calcined plaster instead of ground plaster. �The issues raised by the pleadings and evidence are (1) whether the formula as patented, calling for dissolved bone or ground plaster, was in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to March 1, 1878, (the date of the application;) and (2) whether, if not so in use or on sale, the patented formula differa from the Liebig formula in any patentable respect, and, if so, were the complainants the in- ventors or discoverers of the change constituting that difference. ��� �