482 PEDBKAL EBPORTEB. �"In regard to Ihe Van Skelline machine, there is not in it any such heated eylinder as the cylinder a of claim 1 of No. 8,460, or as the cylinder C of the defendant. It does not anticipaite claim 2 of No. 8,460, because not only is there not in it a roller which transfers the melted wax from the trough to the paper, but there is no scraper between the roller and the paper. It does not meet claim 3 ol ifo. 8,460, because it has no heated cylinder like the heated cylinder a; nor does it meet claim 5 of Nb. 8,460. The operation of spreading the wax upon the surface of the paper, substantially as set forth in the descrip- tion of No. 8i460, involves spreading it by means of a uniform layer of wax on the spreading-cylinder, produced by a scraper applied to such cylinder be- tvyeen the trough and the place of contact with the paper, which removes from the cylinder the surplus wax taken up by it from the trough. In Van Skelline's machine the paper is dipped into the bath of wax and takes up all the wax it will, and then the scraper is applied to the paper. The defend- ant's procoss imitates the plaintifC's, and not Van Skelline's." �As respects the question before us, the operation of the defendants' machine, and his process, are precisely similar to Van Skelline's. This view is also fully sustained by the testimony of the several ex- perts called by the defendants,. — some of whom are men of very great experience and unusual intelligence, respeeting the matters of which they speak. �It is unnecessary to inquire whether the defendants employ or imi- tate other steps of the plaintiff's process. What we have said is suf- ficient to indicate our reasons for holding that they do not employ the process protected by his patent. �The motion must therefore be refused. �MoKennan, G. J., concurred. ��� �
