Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/718

SPILL V. OKLLULOID MANHF'G CO. 711 �useful property in it. In fact, in this art, pyroxyline does not become useful until the fibrous structure is destroyed. Pyroxyline is not useful for any of the purposes to -which the materials formerly bleached were applied. Pyroxyline is very different, in chemical character and composition, from the old bleachable materials. If pyroxyline had not the fibrous structure, probably the question of invention in this case would not bave arisen, for then it would bave ap- peared plainly that the case would bave been very similar to tbat of (suppose) bleacbing charcoal by ordinary bleaching agents. In the absence of experiment, the bleacbing of a substance like pyroxyline would secm impracticable, almost incredible. The theory of ordinary bleacbing is, that the coloring matter of goods to be bleached is of a complicated and unstable character, and is destroyed by the powerful chemical action of the bleaching agents, chlorine, oxygen, etc. Inasmuch as pyroxyline, in its manufacture, bas been exposed to the action of some of the most powerful chemi- cal agents which are known, it is unreasonable to suppose that any of the unstable coloring matter could be left in it. The bleaching of pyroxyline bas often been proposed and attempt- ed ; it was especially desirable in this art ; but it is my opin- ion that a chemist would exhaust ail other theories before he would think of ordinary bleaching agents for the purpose. The subject had come up in my mind several times before SpiU's invention, and I was unwilling to credit the efficacy of bis plans until they were actually demonstrated to me. I know of very few inventions wbere so novel and useful results have been obtained by such simple and unlooked-for methods." There is no evidence to countervail this view. �The defendant bas introduced evidence for the purpose of establishing that the invention claimed by the plaintiff in regard to bleacbing xyloidine was previously known to Parkes, and was communicated by him to the plaintiff, and was not in fact invented ' by the plaintiff. The burden of showing this is on the defendant, and, on the whole evidence, it bas not succeeded in doing so. �The defendant claims to bave shown that other inventions ����