228 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the vacuum and power of suction, and theirs into one de- creasing in size, which increases the power of projection. �If Barclay and Morton's patent could be said to auggest the combination of any lifting apparatus other than that mentioned in other parts of their patent with a Gifford in- jector, it does not show any Buch, nor any mode oî combin- ing them. �A patent or printed publication must, in order to defeat a patent for an invention subsequently obtained, describe the invention so as to enable those skilled in the art to which it belongs or mo8t nearly appertains to construct and use it. This patent givea no information as to how a lifting apparatus can be combined with a Gifford injector. It merely saya that this may be done, but leaves others to invent the mode of doing it. Gresham invented a mode which their suggestion in no way anticipates or defeats. �The defendant uses injectors constructed according to the specification of letters patent No. 138,198, dated April 22, 1873, and granted to Samuel Eue, Jr., for an improvement in injectors for steam generators. There is no fair question upon the evidence, and it is not claimed by counsel in argu- ment, but that these injectors contain substantially the same deviees, operating in substantially the same manner, as Gresham's. They contain additional devices, and are per- haps improvements upon bis ; but that does not carry with it any right to make use of his devices, and it is not claimed that it does. Both Gresham and Eue have made improve- mements upon injectors, and each became entitled to the improvements he made, and to his own form of machine, so far as it should not include parts belonging to others. But Gresham preceded Eue, and the latter oould acquire no rights to the devices of the former, which he included in his form of machine. Railway Co. v. Sayles, 97 U. S. 354. �The c^ase shows that letters patent of Great Britain, No. 410, dated February 14, 1865, were issued to Gresham for the same invention. Whether there was any other date of issue to that patent does not appear. As the case stands now that must be taken to be the date of issue; and accord- ����
