34 rmnmmn nsronrmn.
In the Keeler and Barthel patent, 1862, on seeders, having revolv-
ing seed-wheels with oblique grooves, the following language of the
patentees is suggestive: V -
" We are aware that rollers or cylinders having a Gangs Gxed on one side
and diagonal ridges or partitions on their face open on the other side, unpro-
tected by an adjustable outer Gauge, have been used, as well as others having
spiral Ganges placed iu a reverse position open and unprotected on both sides,
* * * neither of which devices we claim."
» All of the devices covered by the foregoing patents are provided
with oblique or parallel grooves on the seed-wheels. »
The Crowell patent, 1865, the Ingels patent, 1859, and the Keeler
patent, 1864, all show a rocking shaft working in a concave trough
or hopper. ? ` it
The Thomas and Mast patent, 1866, for seed-planters covers an
inventionalmost exactly identical in all its essential particulars with
the complainant’s contrivance. The description, so far as it refers
to the rock-shaft and hopper, would hardly seem out of place if found
in the complainants patent as descriptive of his device. It is con-
ceded by his counsel that “this patent shows all the features of com-
plainant’s invention, excepting the segmental sweep provided upon
its peripheral face with oblique parallel grooves of uniform widths,
C whereby the seed is conveyed in a uniform stream to the discharge
openings from both sides thereof." '
`° Criticism is made that the Thomas and Mast patent was not pleaded
by the defendants. It was admitted by stipulation, subject to all ob-
jections, one of; the objections being that it cannot be used to antici-
pate complainant’s patent for the reason that there is no allegation
to that effect in the answer. Doubtless the learned counsel for the
complainant is strictly right in this view, and yet it is admitted that
the patent is properly in evidence to restrict complainant’s claim,
and to show the state of the art. The foregoing facts are, it is
thought, sufficient to present a clear understanding of the various
questions involved.
The defendants interpose ive separate defenses, viz.: First, that
the complainant is not the inventor of the device in controversy;
second, that the defendants have acquired a constructive license to .
manufacture under the patent, assuming it to be valid; third, that in
view of the state of the art the device in question did not involve
invention; fourth, that the patent is not practical, and is worthless;
Zifih, that the defendants have not used the patented device.