R0BERT3 ». SCHEEIBBR. 859 �In face of the proof s, the deniai of the utility of the invented process is most remarkable. The evidence shows the inven- tion or procesa to have been pre-eminently useful. It bas gone into very extended use throughout the entire oil region, and its use has immensely inereased the production of oil. It has been this large and useful efficiency which has stimu- lated so great a number of infringers to invade the patentee's rights. Nor is there any reasonable pretence that the re- issued patent is for a different invention from that described in the specification of the first re-issue, or that described in the original patent of 1866. The three patents are in evidence, and there is nothing in the one upon which this suit rests, in part, which is not exhibited in the original specification. Indeed, the claim of the last re-issue is almost identical with the claim of the original patent. This defence has been abandoned. We corne, then, to the only defence upon which any reliance is placed, so far as it relates to the validity of the patent. It is the alleged want of novelty and originality of the invention. It is strenuously insisted that the patented process was known and in use before Roberts invented it and >^iiade application for his patent. �The question thus presented is not a new one in this court. It was raised and vigorously urged in Roberts v. Diekey, re- ported in 4 Fisher, 532. In that case the original patent was assailed for alleged want of novelty, and after an extended argument, and the presentation of much evidence, the patent was sustained. No appeal was taken from the decree, and the patent, since the decree was made, has been enforoed in numerous cases. We do not say our former decision is con- clusive upon this defendant. The parties are not the same now, and there is some evidence which was not in the former case. In Roberts v. Diekey we stated at length what we re- garded as the true meaning of the patent, and what, in our opinion, was the process claimed. We shall not repeat what we then said, only observing that we adhere to what we decided. �In support of his averment of the want of novelty of the Eoberts invention the defendant has given evidence of nu- ����
