, and as to the patentee's diligence in
introducing them into public use, and his efforts to derive remuneration
from their sale.

From a careful examination of all these points myself, I have arrived at
the same conclusion as the Examiner.

[Sidenote: Opponents Contentions Not Proven by Facts]

The Counsel, Wm. N. Whitely, the opponent of these extensions have urged
with great pertinacity that the inventions are not novel. They allege
that the same thing existed before in Hiram Moore's "Big Harvester" in
Michigan--the Ambler Machine in New York--the Nicholson Machine in
Maryland--and the White and Hoyle Machines in Ohio. They also contend
that the invention claimed in Patent No. 451 especially, is of no
utility or value. On a careful review of all these points with the light
of the Argument of Counsel, I am quite clear that the Examiners
conclusion as to the novelty and utility of Hussey's invention are
sound. The Moore or "Big Harvester" cutting apparatus, the testimony
shows was designated for the performance of a different duty from
Hussey's and could not without essential changes of construction,
amounting to changes in its principle and mode of operation, be used for
the same purposes as that of Hussey.

The Ambler machine had a straight edge cutter vibrating on arms through
barbed or open slotted fingers. His Cutting apparatus lacked an
essential element found in Hussey's the scalloped cutter, to say nothing
of other material differences. This machine has nothing to impeach the
novelty of Hussey's inventions. The Nicholson Model has no vibrating
scalloped cutter which is one of the specific elements of Hussey's
combination. The White machine as shown in the exhibit produced and
which the testimony shows has been recently fabricated is not
substantially the same combination claimed in patent No. 742. It has not
like Hussey's a cutter with flush edges on both sides of the angle of
the forks on the _same side_ of the blade. The Hoyle Machine,
according to Hoyle's own deposition, is subsequent in date to Hussey's
invention.

[Sidenote: Utility of Hussey's Inventions]

It is contended by the opponents that the patent No. 451 has no utility
or value. I am inclined to the opinion that the utility of the
improvement specified in this patent is, of itself, small, compared with
the improvements covered by the other patents of Hussey now before me,
which are all of very great utility, and two of them indispensable in