HOS V. COXXaJSLIi. S^^ �HoH and others v. Cottrbll and another. 'Circuit Court, D. Gonneelieut. March 30, 1880.) �Patent — Patentee Sole Invbntou — Burden op Proof. — In a suit for an aileged inf ririgcment of letters patent, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the patentee wasnot the sole inventor, although prior thcreto forciga letters had been issued to suoh patentee and another for the same invention. �OoMMissioNBR'a Decision— Formai, Dhfects not IlEViEWABt,E Col- LATERALLY. — In such suit the commissioner's decision is final that the drawings and the model required by the statute had been presented, that the attorney of the applicant was duly constituted by the applicant, and had authority to amend or al ter the specification, and that the spec- ification had been sufficiently sworn to by the inventor. �CoMBnfATiON — Valid Claim. — A claim is not invalid upon the ground that the several elementary parts of a combination bave no conjoint action, and no active connection to produce a joint resuit, where there was invention in Uie combination, and the patentee was the first inventor. �Same — Inventiot». — In determining whether there was invention in any particular combination, the important point is to ascertain whether novelty and utility existed �O.MissioN OP Claim in Btatement of jivbntiok. — A patent is not void by reason of the omission of a daim in the statement of the invention in the body of the specification, which had been iiitroduced by way of amendment into the claim, where the combination recited in the claim is Bhown in the drawings and described in the specification. �M. B. Phillips and Benjamin F. Thurston, for plaintiffs. �H. D. Donnelly and William A. Shipman, for defendants. �Shipman, J. This is a bill in equity, based upon the ai- leged infringement of letters patent, which were granted on March 16, 1869, to Richard M. Hoe, as the assignee of Au- guste Hippolyte Marinoni, for an improvement in lithographie printing presses. The patent bas beenassigned to the plain- tiffs, �The first question is whether Marinoni was the sole in- ventor of the aileged improvement, or was a joint inventor with Francis Noël Chandre. In 1866 Mr. Hoe was in France, and purchased from Marinoni ail his right to the invention in consequence of the future grant of letters patent therefor in the United States. Marinoni made oath, in his application to ��� �
