Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/863

836 FEDERAL EBPOETEB, �eausing an explosion of gunpowder, or its equivalent, ^ï oi near the oil-bearing point, in connection with superineum- bent fluid tamping, substantialiy as set forth" in the speci- fication, �The other patent belonging to the complainants, and alleged to have been infringed by the defendant, numbered 47,458, and dated April 25, 1865, was granted, also, to the said Ed- ward A. L. Eoberts. It is for a new and useful improvement in apparatus for exploding gunpowder or other explosive material when submerged in water in artesian or other similai •wells. The apparatus is clearly and minutely described in the attendant specification, and the daims are as follows: First, the priming chamber h, in combination with the flask, plug and nipple, substantially as set forth; second, tha arrangement of the tube /, or its equivalent, oomposed ol India rubber, or other similar material, with the guard d and boit e, substantially as described, in combination with tha flask a. �The answer of the defendant to the charge of infringement of the process patent, while admitting the issue of the origi- nal, and the re-issues, as set forth in the bill, denies generally that the alleged improvemant was new and useful; that Roberta was the original, true, or first inventor; and it denies also that the invention was not known or used before application was made for the patent, and denies that the invention was not, for more than tv/o years prior to the date of Eobert'a application for a patent, in public use, or on sale in thia country. Passing from these general deniais, the answer proceeds to allege that the re-issue 5,434 was invalid and void, becaùse it described and claimed things substantially dif- ferent from what was described and claimed in the original patent. It also allegea that the second re-issue (that upon which this suit is brought) waa not for the same invention aa that described and specified in the original patent, or in tha first re-issue. There is also a general deniai that the defend- ant bas infringed the oomplainant's invention claimed in the re-iasue 6,258. �The answer then proceeds to set forth these and other de- ����