KNEELAKD e. 6HBRIFF, 901 �Knbbland and others ». Sheeiff an3 othwrs* �[Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. Jane, 1880.) �Patent — ^Incbpticw of Ikvbotpioh. — " A. patentee -whose patent i» sssafled upon the ground of want of novelty may show, by aketches and draw- ingg, the date of his inceptive invention, and if he has exercised reaaoHa- ble diligence in perfectinj; and adapting it, and applying for his patent. Us protection will be cariied back to such date." �In Eqnity. �Geo. H. Chrîsty, for complaînant^. �Bakewell d Kerr, for defendants, �McKennan, C. J. The only defence set iip and relîed upon in this case is that the complainant E. G. Kneeland is net the first and original inventer crf the device deseribed and elaimed in his patent. This defence resta entirely upon alleged prior invention by one Robert M. Davis. The de- cisive question, then, in the case is one of dates. �It would not be profitable to collate the proofs on this point. That Kneeland coneeived the idea of his invention in 1863 ; that he deseribed it partially to different persons after- wards ; that he made sketches, and had a drawing of it made in the summer of 1864; and that he was diligent in reducing it to a practical form, and in obtaining a patent for it, is ail Batisfactorily shown. �The precise date of the occurrence of these facts does not appear, but it ia evident that the statements of the witnessea on this point are approximately correct, because, from the nature of the transactions stated, they must have occurred, if the -witnesses are to be believed at ail, sometime anterior to the date of the application for the patent, whieh was Feb- ruary 27, 1865. �It is not satisfactorily proved that before the date of Knee- land's invention, thus established, the device of Davis was made and used. There is at least plausible reason for tha inference that the conception of Davis' valve was not ma- tured in his own mind earlier than the latter part of 1864, and was not constructed and used until sometime during tha ����
