602 FEDERAL REPORTER. �defendants more forcibly in this-iray; The plaintiffs, at the date of the invention, were making in their factory the Hoe high stop presa, which had an impression cylinder with- out tapes, a receiving cylinder -with tapes, and a sheet flyer without tapes. They also knew of the Taylor press, and were making at the same time divers presses like the Taylor, having impression cylinders with tapes, and a combined tape and sheet flyer delivery. What was easier than for Mr. Hoe to discard his ingenious sheet flyer, and substitute the well- known Taylor method of delivery? Looking at the question from the present stand-point of iime, it is very difficult to point ont satisfactorily to one's self the changes which re- quired invention. If he looked merely at the simplicity of the combination, and at the ease with which it now seems that anybody could have accomplished the resuit, the con- clusion would be irresistible that there was no combination. �The facts which are also to be taken into account in the determination of this question are these : At the date of the invention about 1,800 patents upon printing presses had been granted in England, France, and the United States. This combination did not exist in any patented or non-pat- ented device, so far as is now known. Lithographie printing was at the time well understood. Mr. Hoe, who had long been a printing press manufacturer and inventer, and was thoroughly conversant both by study and practice with the subject of improvements in printing, and was making both the Hoe high stop press and presses which had tape and fly deliveries, when he saw the Marinoni press . recognized it as an invention embodying an advance in the art, and hast- ened to purchase the exclusive right to use the improvement in this country. The combination is useful. It has been a successful and popular press, and has been extensively sold. The plaintiffs have substituted it for the Hoe high stop press. The exhaustive and expensive manner in which this suit has been carried on and contested shows that the combination is of value. �In the determination of the question whether there was invention in any particular combination, the important point ��� �
