such exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it relates to make, construct, and practice the invention to the same practical extent as he would be enabled to do if the information were derived from a prior patent. Hill t. Evans, (1861) 4 De G., F. & J. (Eng.) 288, 6 L. T. N. S. 90; Betts v. Menzies, (1861) 10 H. L. Cas. (Eng.) 117; Seabury v. Am Ende, (1894) 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 553; Eames v. Andrews, (1887) 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 U. S. (L. ed.) 1064; Bignall v. Harvey, (1880) 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 353; Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Parker, (1879) 16 Blatchf. 281, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 625; Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., (1874) 12 Blatchf. 225, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,969; Seymour . Osborne, (1871) 11 Wall. 516, 20 U. S. (L. ed.) 33; Florsheim v. Schilling, (1890) 137 U. S. 64, 11 S. Ct. 20, 34 U. S. (L. ed.) 574; Downton t. Yeager Milling Co., (1883) 108 U. S. 466, 3 S. Ct. 10, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 789; Tilghman v. Proctor, (1881) 102 U. S. 707, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 279. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, (S. D. N. Y. 1899) 94 Fed. 163; Western Electric Co. v. Millheim Electric Telephone Co., (W. D. Pa. 1898) 88 Fed. 505; Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., (N. D. Cal. 1898) 91 Fed. 381; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., (C. C. Me. 1895) 70 Fed. 986; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1889) 38 Fed. 117; Am. Ende t. Seabury, (S. D. N. Y. 1888) 36 Fed. 593; Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting, etc., Co., (C. C. Colo. 1888) 36 Fed. 179; Locke . Lane, etc., Co., (S. D. Ohio 1888) 35 Fed. 289; Fryer v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1887) 30 Fed. 787; Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., (S. D. Ohio 1886) 28 Fed. 360; Hood v. Boston Car-Spring Co., (C. C. Mass. 1884) 21 Fed. 67; New Process Fermentation Co. v. Koch, (E. D. Mich. 1884) 21 Fed. 580; Goff v. Stafford, (1878) 14 Pat. Off. Gaz. 748, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,504; Carr v. Rice, (1856) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,440; Cahill v. Brown, (1878) 3 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 580, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,291; Woodman t. Stimpson, (1866) 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979; United Nickel Co. v. Manhattan Brass Co., (1879) 16 Blatchf. 68, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,410; Stephens v. Salisbury, (1855) MacA. Pat. Cas. 379, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,369; Parker v. Stiles, (1849) 5 McLean 44, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,749; Judson r. Cope, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565; Hays v. Sulsor, (1859) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271; Colgate v. Gold, etc., Tel. Co., (1879) 16 Blatch. 503, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,991; Coleman v. Liesor, (1859) 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984; Roberts v. Dickey, (1871) 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,899; McMillin v. Barclay, (1871) 5

Fish. Pat. Cas. 189, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,902; Brooks v. Bicknell, (1843) 3 McLean 250, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,944.

A description which is insufficient to support a patent cannot be relied upon as an anticipation. Unless the prior publication describes the invention in such full, clear, and intelligible terms as to enable persons skilled in the art to comprehend it, and reproduce the process or article claimed, without assistance from the patent, such publication is insufficient as an anticipation. National Electric Signaling Co. v. United Wireless Tel. Co., (C. C. Me. 1911) 189 Fed. 727. An article describing in very general terms a process of some unknown inventor for the reduction aluminum, as explained at a meeting of mining engineers by one who had not seen it practiced, but spoke from hearsay only, is not such a publication as constitutes an anticipation of a process subsequently invented and patented by other. Electric Smelting, etc., Co. r. Pittsburg Reduction Co., (C. C. A. 2d Cir. 1903) 125 Fed. 926, 60 C. C. A. 636, modifying (W. D. N. Y. 1901) 111 Fed. 742.

of

an

A prior publication in a paper, patent, or otherwise, will not negative the novelty of an invention unless it describes a complete and operative invention capable of being put into practical operation, or contains such a disclosure of the invention that any omission would ordinarily be supplied by one skilled in the art. Crown Cork, etc., Co. v. Standard Stopper Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1904) 136 Fed.

199.

A disclosure of an invention by publication is not sufficient to invalidate a patent therefor applied for more than two years thereafter, unless the description was so full and intelligible as to enable persons skilled in the art to which the invention relates to comprehend or make it without assistance from the patent. Comptograph Co. v. Universal Accountant Mach. Co., (N. D. Ill. 1906) 142 Fed, 539, reversed on other grounds (C. C. A. 7th Cir. 1906) 146 Fed. 981, 77 C. C. A. 227.

Under the rule that to constitute a prior publication which will invalidate a subsequent patent the publication must contain such a substantial representation of the patented device as would enable any person skilled in the art to make, construct, and practice the invention to the same practical extent as he would be enabled to do if the information was derived from a prior patent, a published illustration and description of a bicycle, showing every detail of a part subsequently patented by another, except that it did not show that a tube for containing the pedal shaft, shown by the patent to be without perforations, and so appearing in the illustration, may not have been per

forated or cut away on the bottom or the opposite side not seen there being, however, nothing to indicate that such was the fact fulfils all the conditions of the rule, even conceding that there was a patentable difference between a perforate and imperforate tube used for such purpose. Pope Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, (N. D. Ill. 1910) 177 Fed. 419.

A description by a foreign inventor of a process which was never patented and never used, in order to constitute an anticipation of a subsequent American patent, must be an account of a complete and operative invention, and in case of doubt the success of the patented process, invented many years later, should turn the scale in favor of patentability and nonanticipation. Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co., (N. D. Ill. 1910) 178 Fed. 977.

When further experiment is necessary to make a device or invention practical, a description of the results already attained is not sufficient to constitute an anticipation. Cahill v. Brown, (1878) 3 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 580, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,291; Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik v. Kalle, (S. D. N. Y. 1899) 94 Fed. 163; Western Electric Co. t. Millheim Electric Telephone Co., (W. D. Pa. 1898) 88 Fed. 505.

Suggestions in a publication which require further invention to reduce to a patentable form or to practical use and operation are not sufficient as an anticipation. Howe t. Williams, (1863) 2 Cliff. 245, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,778; McComb v. Ernest, (1871) 1 Woods 195, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,155; Carr v. Rice, (1856) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 198, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,440; Western Electric Co. v. Millheim Electric Telephone Co., (W. D. Pa. 1898) 88 Fed. 505; In re Green, (1891) 20 D. C. 237.

Publication of operative invention.Whatever may be the particular circumstances under which the publication takes place, the account published, to be of any effect to support à defense, must be an account of a complete and operative invention capable or being put into practical operation. Eames r. Andrews, (1886) 122 U. S. 40, 7 S. Ct. 1073, 30 U. S. (L. ed.) 1064; Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., (1876) 93 U. S. 366, 23 U. S. (L. ed.) 907; Downton v. Yeager Milling Co., (1883) 108 U. S. 466, 3 S. Ct. 10, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 789.

Description sufficient for patent.-- In order that a prior publication may be an anticipation, the description must be such that it would be sufficient as a specification for a patent. Acme Flexible Clasp Co. v. Cary Mfg. Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1899) 96 Fed. 344.

A description which is insufficient to support a patent cannot be relied upon as an anticipation. Radische Anilin, etc.,

Fabrik v. Kalle, (S. D. N. Y. 1899) 94 Fed. 163

Description of steps preceding invention. It is not necessary in a publication that the steps which necessarily precede an invention be described if the patented article is itself described. Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., (1876) 93 U. S. 366, 23 U. S. (L. ed.) 907.

Statement of mere fact of invention.— The naked assertion that a certain result has been accomplished, without describing the means which produced it, is insufficient as an anticipation. American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds, etc., Co., (C. C. A. 2d Cir. 1909) 170 Fed. 327, 95 C. C. A. 511.

Publication of part of invention.-A prior published description of a part of an invention is not sufficient to avoid or invalidate a patent for the whole. Westinghouse v. Gardner, etc., Air-Brake Co., (1875) 2 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 55, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,450.

Scientific suggestions.-A publication showing only suggestions and speculations of scientific men who had never tested the practicability of the device is insufficient. Jensen v. Keasbey, (E. D. Pa. 1885) 24 Fed. 144; Hays v. Sulsor, (1859) 1 Bond 279, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 532, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,271.

Where the description in a foreign publication is fully as definite as the specification in the application for the patent in this country it is sufficient to defeat the patent. Woven Wire Mattress Co. v. Whittlesey, (1876) 8 Biss. 23, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,058.

Publications and devices suggesting invention.-Devices and publications leading up to, but not fully accomplishing, a desired end, do not anticipate an invention which for the first time effectively meets all requirements and successfully accomplishes such end. Truax v. George F. Childs Adjustable Parlor Chair Co., (N. D. Ill. 1894) 162 Fed. 907.

Description of process for making article. Where an article is patented, a prior publication relied upon to anticipate it, need not describe the process by which it is made if it describes the article. Cohn v. U. S. Corset Co., (1876) 93 U. S. 366, 23 U. S. (L. ed.) 907.

Extrinsic evidence.- Upon a question of anticipation a published description must be construed as it appears on its face and extrinsic evidence may not be admitted to show another intended meaning. Badische Anilin, etc., Babrik v. Kalle, (C. C. A. 2d Cir. 1900) 104 Fed. 802, 44 C. C. A. 201.

It is not competent to read into a publication relied on as an anticipation of a subsequent patent information which it does not give, nor by expert opinion explain an otherwise uninforming statement by evidence of some apparatus or

article not itself competent as an anticipation. Loew Filter Co. v. GermanAmerican Filter Co., (C. C. A. 6th Cir. 1908) 164 Fed. 855, 90 C. C. A. 637, modfying (N. D. Ohio 1907) 155 Fed. 124.

Publication as evidence of other facts.A prior publication cannot be used to show any other fact outside of the description of the questioned device. Seymour . McCormick, (1857) 19 How. 96, 15 U. S. (L. ed.) 557.

Patentee's knowledge of publication.— It is immaterial whether or not the patentee knows of publications which would render his patent void under this section, but such publications must be so full and clear as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which they appertain to practice the invention to the same practical extent as they would be enabled to do if the information were derived from a prior patent. De Lamar r. De Lamar Min. Co., (C. C. Idaho 1901) 110 Fed. 538.

Mere invention without use or publication. It is not enough to defeat a patent that some one other than the patentee had conceived the invention before he did, or had even perfected it, so long as it had not been in public use, or described in some patent or publication, if the patentee was an original and independent inventor. Lincoln Iron Works v. W. H. McWhirter Co., (C. C. A. 2d Cir. 1905) 142 Fed. 967, 74 C. C. A. 229, affirming (E. D. N. Y. 1904) 131 Fed. 860.

One who invents and constructs a machine, but permits it to slumber, and neither applies for a patent nor makes any public use of it, cannot resort to such invention as an anticipation of a subsequent patent obtained by another. Welsbach Light Co. v. Cohn, (S. D. N. Y. 1910) 181 Fed. 122.

Date of prior description.-A prior description, knowledge, or use to constitute an anticipation must antedate the actual invention, and not merely the date of the patent. Judson v. Cope, (1860) 1 Bond 327, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565; Parker v. Hulme, (1849) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 44, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,740; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Stimpson, (1840) 14 Pet. 448, 10 U. S. (L. ed.) 535; Dixon v. Moyer, (1821) 4 Wash. 68, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931; James t. Campbell, (1882) 104 U. S. 356, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 786; Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., (1878) 97 U. S. 126, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 1000; Smith r. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., (1877) 93 U. S. 486, 23 U. S. (L. ed.) 952; Velsbach Light Co. v. American Incandescent Lamp Co., (C. C. A. 2d Cir. 1899) 98 Fed. 613, 39 C. C. A. 185; Bannerman v. Sanford, (S. D. N. Y. 1897) 85 Fed. 448; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v Howland Falls Pulp Co., (C. C. A. 1st Cir. 1897) 80 Fed. 395, 50 U. S. App. 52, 5 C. C. A. 500; Von Schmidt v. Bowers,

(C. C. A. 9th Cir. 1897) 80 Fed. 121, 48 U. S. App. 120, 25 C. C. A. 323; Hanifen v. E. H. Godshalk Co., (E. D. Pa. 1896) 78 Fed. 811; Pacific Cable R. Co. r. Butte City St. R. Co., (C. C. Mont. 1893) 55 Fed. 760; Ashton Valve Co. v. Coale Muffler, etc., Valve Co., (C. C. A. 4th Cir. 1892) 52 Fed. 314, 8 U. S. App. 169, 3 C. C. A. 98; U. S. Electric Lighting Co. v. Edison Lamp Co., (C. C. N. J. 1892) 51 Fed. 24; Norton v. California Automatic Can Co., (N. D. Cal. 1891) 45 Fed. 637; Bradley, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Charles Parker Co., (C. C. Conn. 1888) 35 Fed. 748; Brahn v. Ramapo IronWorks, (S. D. N. Y. 1888) 35 Fed. 63; Bliss v. Merrill, (S. D. N. Y. 1887) 33 Fed. 39; Byerly v. Cleveland Linseed Oil Works, (N. D. Ohio 1887) 31 Fed. 73; Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Woerle, (N. D. IIl. 1887) 29 Fed. 449; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., (1867) 5 Sawy. 607, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919. Date of publication.A publication which will anticipate a patent must have been made prior to the date of the invention, not merely prior to the date of the patent. Webb . Quintard, (1872) 9 Blatchf. 352, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,324; Bartholemew v. Sawyer, (1859) 4 Blatchf. 347, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,070; Howe r. Morton, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,769; Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., (1872) 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 458, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660; Elizabeth t. American Nicholson Pavement Co., (1878) 97 U. S. 126, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 1000; Cochrane v. Deener, (1877) 94 U. S. 780, 24. U. S. (L. ed.) 139; Judson v. Cope, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 615, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,565.

The date on the title page of a book is not sufficient to show that a published inscription of an invention found therein was prior to the date of the invention, so as to constitute anticipation. Reeves v. Keystone Bridge Co., (1872) 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 456, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660.

In Parks v. Booth, (1880) 102 U. S. 96, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 54, it was held that it was not necessary that the date of publication shall be two years prior to the late of the patentee's invention, as the only requirement of the statute is that It shall be prior to the supposed invenion of the complainant.

The date of invention must be taken to be the time when the idea of doing the thing in substantially the way for which the patent provides is conceived. O'Reilly v. Morse, (1853) 15 How. 62, 14 U. S. (5. ed.) 601; Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., (1851) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 108, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,030; National Filtering Oil Co. v. Arctic Oil Co., (1871) 8 Blatchf. 416, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,042; Adams v. Edwards, (1848) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 53; Ransom v. New York, (1856) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 252, 20 Fed.

Cas. No. 11,573; Stimpson v. Woodman, (1870) 10 Wall. 117, 19 U. S. (L. ed.) 866; Matthews v. Skates, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,291; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., (1867) 5 Sawy. 608, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., (C. C. Me. 1895) 70 Fed. 986; Woodman v. Simpson, (1866) 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 98, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,979; Macdonald v. Blackmer, (1878) 4 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 78, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,757.

The date of an invention is the time at which a complete and intelligible embodiment of it is made such as could be understood by those skilled in the art. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, (1882) 105 U. S. 580, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 1177; Draper v. Potomska Mills Corp., (1878) 3 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 214, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,072; Reeves . Keystone Bridge Co., (1872) 9 Phila. (Pa.) 368, 29 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 124, 1 Pat. Off. Gaz. 466, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,660; Matthews v. Skates, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 602, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,291; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. Co., (1867) 5 Sawy. 608, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919; Reed r. Cutter, (1841) 1 Story 590, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,645; Williames v. Barnard, (S. D. N. Y. 1890) 41 Fed. 358.

Reasonable diligence in perfecting invention. This rule, however, is subject to the condition that reasonable diligence has been exercised by the patentee in the perfection and adaption of the idea and in the application for a patent. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. r. Minneapolis Harvester Works, (C. C. Minn. 1890) 42 Fed. 152; Draper r. Potomska Mills Corp., (1878) 3 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 214, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4.072; Griffin r. Swenson, (1899) 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 135.

Invention antedating perfection. The invention of an instrument or device may, however, antedate its perfection. National Filtering Oil Co. r. Arctic Oil Co., (1871) 8 Blatchf. 416, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 10,042; Colt v. Massachusetts Arms Co., (1851) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 108, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,030.

Date determined by models, etc.-The date of an invention may be taken to be the time when models, drawings, or sketches were made. Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, (1882) 105 U. S. 580, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 1177; Von Schmidt v. Bowers, (C. C. A. 9th Cir. 1897) 80 Fed. 121, 48 U. S. App. 120, 25 C. C. A. 323. Date determined by application.- Or it may be determined by the date of the application for a patent. Suffolk Mfg. Co. t. Hayden, (1866) 3 Wall. 315, 18 U. S. (L. ed.) 76; Bates v. Coe, (1878) 98 U. S. 31, 25 U. S. (L. ed.) 68; Cochran v. Zimmerman, (N. D. Ohio. 1892) 53 Fed. 801; Kearney v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., (C. C. N. J. 1887) 32 Fed. 320: Patents Selling, etc., Co. v. Dunn, (C. C. A. 2d Cir. 1914)

213 Fed. 40, 129 C. C. A. 634; Johnsen v. Fassman, (1871) 1 Woods 138, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,365; Dane v. Chicago Mfg. Co., (1872) 3 Biss. 380, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,557; McCormick t. Cleal, (1898) 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 335. But in Alvord v. Smith, etc., Ironworks, (D. C. Ore. 1914) 216 Fed. 150, the court held that the date when the patent is actually issued, rather than the date when the application therefor is filed, determines whether or not it anticipates another patent. In Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg. Co., (C. C. A. 7th Cir. 1913) 213 Fed. 471, 130 C. C. A. 117, the court held that the date of the issue controls for all purposes of anticipation. But again in the question of date, in Moline Plow Co. v. Rock Island Plow Co., (C. C. A. 7th Cir. 1914) 212 Fed. 727, 129 C. C. A. 337, the court held that in cases where the invention may be exhibited in a drawing or in a model, it will date from the completion of such a model or drawing as is sufficiently plain to enable those skilled in the art to understand the invention. The date of a patented invention is at least as early as the date of the application, provided it sufficiently describes the invention to enable those skilled in the art to understand it, such application being conclusive evidence that the invention is perfected and adapted to use, and the equivalent of an actual reduction to practice under the statute. Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. v. Pneumatic Scale Corp., (C. C. A. 1st Cir. 1909) 166 Fed. 288, 92 C. C. A. 206, reversing (C. C. Me. 1908) 158 Fed. 415. In an interference between an applicant and a prior patentee, the date of the filing of the latter's application, in the absence of proof on his part to show an earlier date of conception and reduction to practice, must be taken as his date of conception, disclosure, and constructive reduction to practice; the patent standing as proof of those facts. Dashiell v. Tasker, (1903) 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64. The filing date of a party to an interference who takes no testimony stands for the date of conception and constructive reduction to practice. McKnight v. Pohle, (1907) 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 92.

Successive applications.-The abandonment of one application for a patent on the filing of another for the same device does not preclude the patentee from showing the actual date of his invention to meet a claim of anticipation. Corrington t. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1909) 173 Fed. 69.

Date determined by completed machine. Where an invention was embodied in a complete machine in actual though private use at a certain date that date may be taken as the date of invention. Williames v. Barnard, (S. D. N. Y. 1890) 41 Fed. 358; Knox v. Loweree, (1874) 1 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 589, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,910.

Date determined by testimony of inventor. Where the date of an invention contended for depends on the mere say-so of the inventor and his son, without any convincing or corroborating circumstances, this does not fulfil the high degree of proof required to escape anticipation. Eck r. Kutz, (E. D. Pa. 1904) 132 Fed. 758.

Date of foregn patent to same inventor. -The date of the invention cannot be claimed by a patentee to be earlier than the date of a foreign patent previously issued to him for the same invention. Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1889) 38 Fed. 117.

As against an infringer, the patentee in a United States patent for an invention previously made by him and patented in a foreign country may, to avoid alleged use in this country before the date of the foreign patent, show the date of the application for the foreign patent, for the purpose of showing the actual date of his invention. Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik r. Klipstein, (S. D. N. Y. 1903) 125 Fed. 543.

Date of foreign anticipating patent.In order to constitute anticipation by a foreign patent the date of the foreign patent must be previous to the date of the invention of the domestic patent. Cochrane v. Deener, (1877) 94 U. S. 780, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 139; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Howland Falls Pulp Co., (C. C. A. 1st Cir. 1897) 80 Fed. 395, 50 U. S. App. 52, 25 C. C. A. 500; Howe v. Morton, (1860) 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 586, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6.769. The foreign patent shall apply only as of a date when the invention was published or was accessible to the public, and not as of an earlier date, from which the inventor may have enjoyed the benefit of the foreign patent as a patent. De Florez v. Raynolds, (S. D. N. Y. 1880) 8 Fed. 434. A patent will not be invalidated for anticipation by a foreign patent of prior date, if the invention is shown to have been made by the American patentee before such date; but, where anticipation is otherwise clear, the burden rests on him to establish such priority beyond a reasonable doubt. Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co., (C. C. A. 6th Cir. 1906) 148 Fed. 622, 78 C. C. A. 394.

Identity of anticipating device. It is not necessary to render a patent void for want of novelty that the anticipating and subsequent devices should be absolutely identical. A. B. Dick Co. v. Wichelman, (S. D. N. Y. 1900) 105 Fed. 629; Sagendorph . Hughes, (E. D. Pa. 1899) 95 Fed. 478; In re Bedford, (1899) 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 376; In re Marshutz, (1898) 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 228.

A patent cannot be supported against a claim of anticipation by features not referred to, claimed, or even suggested

therein, and not a function of the thing patented, except when used in a special combination. Greene v. United Shoe Machinery Co., (C. C. A. 1st Cir. 1904) 132 Fed. 973, 66 C. C. A. 43, reversing (C. C. Mass. 1902) 115 Fed. 155.

Substantial identity necessary. To constitute anticipation it is necessary that the prior and subsequent devices be substantially identical. Lowell v. Lewis, (1817) 1 Mason (U. S.) 182, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,568; Blanchard v. Puttman, (1867) 2 Bond 84, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,514; Whipple v. Baldwin Mfg. Co., (1858) 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 29, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,514; Clough v. Barker, (1882) 106 U. S. 166, 1 S. Ct. 188, 27 U. S. (L. ed.) 134; American Graphophone Co. v. Leeds, (S. D. N. Y. 1898) 87 Fed. 873; Matheson v. Campbell, (S. D. N. Y. 1896) 77 Fed. 280; Gordon v. Warder, (S. D. Ohio 1889) 38 Fed. 592; Consolidated Bunging Apparatus Co. v. Woerle, (N. D. III. 1887) 29 Fed. 449.

It will be sufficient if the two devices are substantially identical or equivalent, or if they perform the same function in substantially the same way and accomplish substantially the same result; that they may differ in name and form is immaterial. Brush v. Condit, (1889) 132 U. S. 39, 10 S. Ct. 1, 33 U. S. (L. ed.) 251; Union Sugar Refinery v. Matthiesson, (1865) 3 Cliff. 639, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,399; Winans v. New York, etc., R. Co., (1859) 21 How. 88, 16 U. S. (L. ed.) 68; Delano v. Scott, (1834) Gilp. 489, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,753; Evans . Eaton, (1818) 3 Wash. 443, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,560; Wollensak v. Sargent, (1894) 151 U. S. 221, 14 S. Ct. 291, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 137; Lawther v. Hamilton, (1888) 124 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 342, 31 U. S. (L. ed.) 325; Siemens v. Sellers, (1887) 123 U. S. 276, 8 S. Ct. 117, 31 U. S. (L. ed.) 153; Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy, (1878) 97 U. S. 120, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 935; Johnston v. Woodbury, (C. C. A. 9th Cir. 1901) 109 Fed. 567, 48 C. C. A. 550; Electrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien Electric Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1889) 38 Fed. 117; U. S. Bung Mfg. Co. v. Independent Bung, etc., Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1887) 31 Fed. 76; Joel t. Gesswein, (S. D. N. Y. 1888) 36 Fed 592; Woodruff v. Carr, (C. C. Minn. 1887) 32 Fed. 224; Glasgow v. Fritts, (N. D. III. 1884) 22 Fed. 391; McCormick v. Seymour, (1851) 2 Blatchf. 240, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,726; Clark Patent Steam, etc., Regulator Co. v. Copeland, (1862) 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 221, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,866.

It is not necessary, in determining the question of anticipation, that the process should be identical in all particulars. It is sufficient if in general aspects the two processes are the same and the differences in minor matters are only such as would