BIGLETON MANUF'g CO. V. WEST, ETC., MANUF'g 00. 777 �effect thereon. I have, therefore, found that when the springs are protected by japanning they are much more durable and give more satisfr-ctory resulta, the same being applied by the common japanning process. �"Having thus described my invention, I claim ashew, and desire to secure by letters patent, japanned furniture eprings, as a new article of manufacture, substantially as and for the purpose described." �Here is the whole of the specification and claim, and there is nothing in it nearly or remotely suggesting or hinting at anything more than merely proteeting the springs by japan. �There is not a word about any method of tempering them whatever ; nor that his treatment of them bas any tendency whatever to temper them. �Ail that is said relates entirely to their need of protection, and to his mode of proteeting them. The patent office bo understood and construed it, rejected it because japanning was open to ail, and informed him of the rejection and its grouuds, and he acquiesced in it as long as he lived. There is no question but that the rejection upon that understanding was right. It is not claimed that this patent, or any patent, could be maintained for merely proteeting steel or any other metal, in the form of these springs, or in any other form, by japan. �The discovery is that moderate beat, such as may be ap- plied in japanning, wiU restore and impart temper to these springs. �The patent is, therefore, for the springs tempered in this- manner. �The application does not take that discovery or invention back to its date at ail. It shows nothing affirmatively about any such thing. StUl, it is claimed that the proofs in the case show that Eagleton was in fact the first inventer or dis- coverer of this improvement. When the application fails to take the date of the invention back of the date of the patent, and the defendants make out prior knowledge and use by others beyond any fair or reasonable doubt, as the law re- ����
