EOBEETS ». 80HBEIBEB. §57 �fencea more particularly. Eepeating th« averment that Roberts was not the first and original inventer of the procesa claimed, but that the same, "or a substahtial and material part thereof , or Bubstantial and material parts thereof , claimed therein as new, was, or ■were before the said Eoberts' supposed invention, known to and used" by numerous persons, whose names and the places of use are specified, the answer further avers that the invention was described in certain patents and in printed publications in this country and in Europe before it is claimed to have been made by the patentee. �The answer also alleges that Eoberts had never reduced to practice his supposed improvement -when he filed his appli- cation for a patent, or, in other -words, that it was not then a complete invention ; that the re-issue 6,258 does not describe any practically useful mode of increasing or restoring the pro- ductiveness of wells ; that it has no utility ; that for the pur- pose of deceiving the public the description in the second re-isBue was made to contain less than the whole truth rela- tive to the invention or discovery, and that for that reason the patent is void ; that for the purpose of deceiving the pub- lic the application for the re-issue was made to contain more than is necessary to produce the desired effect, or the alleged useful resuit, and that the patent is void for that reason; and that the specification of the re-issued patent does not describe the alleged invention in such fuU, clear and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it appertains to use the same, and that for this reason the patent is void. �Passing from the process patent to patent 47,458, the de- fendant's answer denies any infringement thereof, and avers that the letters patent are for a combination of parts not new, and constituting a cartridge or torpedo which was not new, if at ail, otherwise than as specifie devices or specifie combinations of the parts constructed and combined as de- scribed in the specification, and specified in the claims; that Eoberts was not the true original and first inventer of said parts, nor of any or either of them, nor of either of the com- binations specified in the letters patent, if at ail, except when such parts respectively were constructed and combined sub- ����
