40 REDERAL .nm>om*n1z.
ing the tobacco within a chest which is surrounded by a jacket or ex-
ternal case, into which latter steam is conducted; said chest being pro-
vided with an outlet for the escape of the juices which are expelled from
the leaves in the form of vapor, and also with one or more perforated
pipes for allowing more or less steam to enter the chest during the pro-
cess/’ and “if, at any time during the treatment, it is desired to intro-
duce steam directly into the chest for moistening the tobaccoiand giving
it darker shades of color, this can be done by," adjusting a valve and
opening_a,pipeL` Theprocess of the orator’s patent of April 19, 1881,
is substantially that carried on in the operation of the sweat-house of his
patent of June 15, 1880, asrdescribcd in that patent.
A pai>ent.may`be valid for a process, and another be valid for means
of carrying it on-. Corningiv. Burden,. 15 How. 252; Cochrane v. Deener,
94 U. S¢~<780`; Ttlghman v`: Proctor, 102 U. S. 707: There may, there-
fore, be a patent for a process of curing tobacco, and another for a sweat-
house to work thatprocess, and both be valid. The patent to Abraham`
Robinsonjldated June 10, 1879—,=for an improved apparatus for resweat
ing tobacco,,which, was under consideration in Sutter, v. Robinson, 119 ‘
U. S. 530,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. ,376, is in evidence in this case, but the
Husevpatentfof 1865, referred ·to¤·in that case as ananticipation .or;re-
striction of the Robinson patent, is not. ` The precise invention in the
Robinson patent appears tohave been held in that case to be the substi-
tution of wooden vessels for metallic-·ones to hold the tobacco during the
process of resweating. Thisiis the principal feature jof the orator’s pro-
, cess patent of April 19, 1881. `The rest consists merely in subdividing
the tobacco, and heating it in a moist atmosphere of sufficient density
and heat to color it. Robinson described the heating in a moist atmos-
phere, although that was not the feature left after a comparison with
the Huse patent.? This leaves nothing but subdivision into smaller ves-
sels of the same kind for convenience in handling and of examination,
. which would- require no invention. *The substitution of smaller vessels
for larger, when convenience required, would beiobvious to any one suf-
ficiently skilled in the process to go through it with the larger ones.
This patent, therefore, fails for want of novelty and invention suflicient
to uphold it. r a t
· Prior to the Burdick, Chase, and Isherwood’s patent of 1869 there was
the patent of:`·Enoch Huse, in 1844, for renovating tobacco by wetting it,
and then heatingit in an oven or drying room, and then pressing it; the
patent of Benjamin Payn, in 1859, for coloring and curing tobacco-stems
- by steaming them on a grated platform in a close room; and the patent A
to Benjamin `A.· Davis, in 1867, for curing tobacco by drying it under a
glass roof exposed to the sun’s rays in fair weather, and by artificial heat
in long spells of rainy weather. This patent in question appears to per-
tain to curing green tobacco rather than to resweating it after it has been
cured. The process of it is not much different from that of Payn’s. The
" degree of heat is not so definitively specified in that, and that exposes
the stems to the direct action of `thesteam altogether, and refers to stems
instead of to leaves. y