HAMMERSCHLAG V. BCAMONI. 695 �is liardly a deniai that, on November 27, 1880, the machine contained the mechanism stated, or that the expert, on that day, Baw the papermoving in the machine at a faster speed thaa the cylinder, as claimed in the plaintiff's patent. �The defendant's expert states that the mechanism referred to is shown in the Williams patent, before mentioned, No. 10,774; and in the English provisional specification of Alex- ander Eobertson, No. 2,316, filed October 16, 1858; and in English letters patent to Stanislas T. M. Sorel, No. 1,440, of 1855; and in English letters patent to John Dickinson, No. 4,152, of 1817. No copy of the Sorel patent or of the Dickinson patent has been furnished to me. The expert does not state what it is he refers to in any one of the four patents. The plaintiff's expert says that Williams does not refer to the subject. He does not allude to Eobertson or Sorel. He examines the Dickinson specification at length, and says that it shows that the differentiation of speed was known to Dickinson in the operation of sizing paper, but that the plaintiff's scraper, x, is wanting in Dickinson ; that without that scraper it is not possible to utilize the variation of speed in waxing paper; that the scraper removes from the cylinder the greater proportion of the wax taken up by it from the trough ; that the method of reducing, by the differ- entiation of speed, the amount of wax to be deposited on the paper, is a method added to the method of reducing such amount by means of the scraper ; that the scraper, though not referred to by name in the text of No. 209,393, is clearly shown in the drawing; that the language of the text in regard to No. 193,867, and the reference thereto "for a description of the construction and operation of the parts, except so far as the present features of improvement," is a substantial incorporation of the new improvement upon the former one ; that the specification of No. 193,867 fully describes the scraper, x; that, taking the two patents together, the one as an improvement bn the other, the scraper is an essential part of the mechanism, and its operation is part of the method named in claim 1 of No. 209,393; and that, there- fore, Dickinson does not contain plaintiff's invention, as se- ��� �
