Ward

In this suit appellee alleged infringement of three patents; appellants denied invention and infringement. At trial, appellee limited evidence to patent No. 985,709, and the District Court sustained the patent, found infringement, and awarded usual relief.

The patent purports to be for invention of “certain new and useful improvements in methods of waterproofing cement blocks,” and states that the object of the ^invention is to “waterproof the exposed face of the block without the application of external pressure or the use of special waterproofing compounds, and in such manner that the block can be immediately removed from the mold.” Of the old methods it declares the disadvantages are that use of the special compound “is apt to destroy perfect crystallization during the curing period, as well as to discolor the block,” and, where not used, “the surface to be waterproofed must be thoroughly wet, in order that the cementitious material used for waterproofing shall enter the pores of the block and become thoroughly crystallized, so as to form a perfect union. * * * And the cementitious material will not enter the pores of the bloek except under pressure.” The specifications then…