774 FEDERAL REPORTER. �defence. This, in my judgment, she fails to do, The weight o.f evidence — that which convinces the mind — and of argu- ment, too, is against her. �A decree for the complainant must be entered. ���The Eagleton Mantjfactuking Co. v. The West, Bbadley & Caey Manufaotubing Co. and another. �{Uireuit Court, 8. D. New York. June 9, 1880.) �Patent — Date of Invention — Buhdbn of Proof. — ^When the applica- càtion fails to take the date of the invention liack of the date of the patent, and the defendant makes out prior knowledge and use by others, beyond any f air or reasonable doubt, as the law requires, the bur- den is shifted on to the plaintifE to show invention or discovery by the patentee still prior to that tiine. �Bame — Ambndment of Application^Authoritt of Attobnkts. — The former attorneys of a deceased inventer liave no autliority to amcnd an application for letters patent, unsupported by the oath of the personal representative of the decedent. �Bame — Samh — Samb — Plbading. — Such objection need not be specifically set forth in the answer, in the absence of a statutory requirement. �In Equity. �F. H. Betts and Wm. D. Shipman, for plaintiffs. �Wm. G. Witter and Geo. Gifford, for defendants. �Whbelee, d. J. This bill is brought upon letters patent No. 122,001, dated December 19, 1871, issued to J. Joseph Eagleton, Sarah N. Eagleton, administratrix, assigner to Eagleton Manufacturing Company, for an improvement in japanned furniture springs. The defences set up in the an- swer are that Eagleton was not the original and first inventer of the improvement; that the specification is not sufïïciently full, clear and exact to enable persons skilled in the art to practice the invention ; that the specification does not con- tain the whole truth relating to the invention ; and that the defendants do not infringe. �The springs, which are the subject of the patent, are coiled helical or hour-glass springs, so-called, made of steel wire, ����
