212 FBDESAL BBPOBTEn. �cushion rails ; d, the legs ; and e, the cushions ; ail of which are made about as usual, except that the main frame is made 80 that the aides of the body of the table run under or flare at about an angle of 30 or 40 degrees, as shown at /. The inclined sides, /, it will be seen, are perfect planes, so that the expense of getting ont the stuff and putting together, and the yeneering, is no more than in the manufacture of the vertical sided tables now generalxy made. The inclined or flared sides, /, may be ornamented, panelled, etc., to any desired extent. By reference to the figure drawn at figure 2 it will be seen that the player can so extend his leg under the table, when made as shown, as to enable him to reach further over the bed, which is a great convenience, and enables the player to easily reach many shots, which, on the table as now made, have to be played with the bridge." �The claim is in these words : "The design for billiard tables, as herein shown and described." �The specifie defence set up in the answer, in connection with the design patent, i^ that the invention patented by the mechanical patent was described in the design patent before it was invented by the plaintiff. What exact defence is intended by this statement it is diffieult to see. In argument it is contended for the defendant that, as the mechanical patent was issued December 23, 1873, more than two years after the issuing of the design patent, which was issued June 6, 1871, the mechanical patent is void because the original mechanical patent describes and claims the same thing which is described in the design patent. The application for the mechanical patent was filed January 16, 1872. The statu- tory defence allowed by section 61 of the act of July 8, 1870, (16 U. S. St. at Large, § 208, now § 4920 of the Kevised Statutes,) is that the thing patented "had been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years before the patentee's application for a patent, or had been abandoned to the public." No such defence is set up in the answer, nor is any such defence proved by the evidence. The fact that the original mechanical patent was issued more than two years after the design patent is of no importance. The claim ����
