THE ANSWER OF JOHN WANAMAKER, THOMAS B. WANAMAKER, L. RODMAN WANAMAKER, and ROBERT C. OGDEN, DEFENDANTS, to the BILL OF COMPLAINT of GEORGE M. BALL and FREDERIC J. BALL, doing BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF THE NEW YORK GEAR WORKS, COMPLAIANTS.

These defendants reserving to themselves all right of exception to and and all matters contained in said Bill of Complaint, make answer thereto, or to so much thereof as they are advised is material to be answered, as follows:

I. These defendants have no knowledge or information as to whether the said complainants are doing business under the firm and style of the New York Gear Works in the Borough of Brooklyn, State of New York. It is admitted that the defendants, except Robert C. Ogden, are citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, and that Robert C. Ogden is a citizen of the State of New York, and that said Defendants are doing business under the name of John Wanamaker in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York.

II. These defendants further answering aver that they have no information as to the application for and issue of asserted Letters Patent of the United States, No. 671,747 to said Frederic J. Ball on said 9th day of April, 1901, and therefore upon information and belief deny the allegations regarding the same. They further deny that said Frederic J. Ball was the true, original and first inventor of said alleged improvements in reverse gears, and deny that the same is not known and used by others in this country before his alleged invention or discovery thereof, and they deny that the said improvements were not patented or described in any printed publication before his, said Frederic J. Ball's alleged invention or discovery, and deny that the same has not been in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his alleged application for Letters Patent as aforesaid. They further aver that the subject-matter of said patent did not, at the time of said alleged invention, describe any invention or discovery original with the said Frederic J. Ball, and that they therefore deny that the said Commissioner of Patents had authority to issue the said patent, and deny that there was granted or secured to said Frederic J. Ball, or his assigns, for the term of seventeen years from the said 9th day of April, 1901, full and exclusive right or any exclusive right to make, use or vend to others to be used, the said alleged invention or discovery purporting to be set forth in the words of said Frederic J. Ball and claimed by him as appears in the schedule annexed to the Bill of Complaint and made a part of the same.

III. These defendants have no knowledge of any assignment of any interest in said Letters Patent No. 671,747 from said Frederic J. Ball to said George Milton Ball, and therefore, upon information and belief, deny the same.

They have no knowledge as to any assignment from said Frederic J. Ball and George Milton Ball to the New York Gear works and therefore, upon information and belief, deny the same.

IV. These defendants further deny any exclusive ownership by said complainants of any purported invention set forth in said Letters Patent and of all exclusive rights and privileges thereunder, and also of all claims, demands, sums of money or causes of action by reason of said purported Letters Patent.

V. These defendants have no knowledge that the said Frederic J. Ball was the first, original and true inventor or discoverer of certain other new and useful improvements in reversing mechanism purported to be set forth in said asserted Letters Patent of the United States, dated January 12, 1904, No. 749,516, but on information and belief deny all the allegations regarding the same, and that said Frederic J. Ball was the first, true and original inventor or discoverer of said alleged improvements, and that the same had not been in public use for more than two years before his application and before his alleged invention thereof, and that the same was not patented or described in any printed publication before his invention or discovery thereof.

They further deny that said alleged Letters Patent granted to Frederic J. Ball or his assigns for the term of seventeen years from said 12th day of January, 1904, No. 747,516, the full and exclusive right of making, constructing, using and vending to others the alleged inventions and improvements set forth in said Letters Patent.

That they have no knowledge that said Frederic J. Ball assigned said Letters Patent to the New York Gear Works, and, therefore, upon information and belief, deny the same.

And they further deny that by reason thereof the said complainants have obtained any right or interest therein or thereunder or to any rights of actions arising therefrom, or that they are the exclusive owners of said Letters Patent.

VI. These defendants further answering aver that they have no knowledge as to the application for and issue of said asserted Letters Patent No. 749,602, dated January 12, 1904, and alleged to be issued to said complainant, Frederic J. Ball, but, on information and belief, they deny the same, and deny that said Frederic J. Ball was the original and first inventor or first discoverer of the alleged new and useful improvements in reversing mechanism set forth in said patent.

They deny that the same was not patented or described in any printed publication before his alleged invention or discovery, and deny that the same was not known or used by others in this country before his invention thereof, and that the same was not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his said application.

They deny that said Letters Patent granted to said Frederic J. Ball, or his assigns, for the term of seventeen years from the 12th day of January, 1904, the full and exclusive right of making, using and vending to others, the alleged inventions or improvements alleged to have been described in said Letters Patent.

VII. These defendants have no information and therefore dent that said Frederic J. Ball assigned to the New York Gear Works his entire right, title and interest in and to said last named Letters patent, and that by reason thereof said complainants have the entire right, title and interest therein and thereto, and that they are the exclusive owners thereof.

VIII. These defendants, upon information and belief, deny that the said alleged improvements or inventions or discoveries so patented in said several alleged Letters Patent are of great utility; that the same have been extensively introduced in public use; that the public has generally acquiesced and acknowledged complainants' exclusive right in the same in that said Letters Patent, respectively, are good and valid Letters Patent, and that said Frederic J. Ball was the first, true and original inventor or discoverer of the alleged improvements in said alleged Letters Patent.

On information and belief they deny that notice of the existence of said Letters Patent, and each of them, has been given to said defendants and that they have been notified of the claimed infringement thereof and that they have been requested to desist from their use.

IX. Upon information and belief these defendants further deny that the said improvements and discoveries described and claimed in said Letters Patent are capable of conjoint use in one and the same structure and they further deny that they are, in fact, so conjointly used by the defendants in any manner whatever.

X. These defendants further answering aver that, in view of the sate of the art, at the time when said alleged inventions and discoveries were made by said Frederic J. Ball, or either of them, as described and claimed in said Letters Patent respectively were not patentable inventions and were void of patentable novelty, and that each of said alleged Letters Patent respectively are therefore null and void.

These defendants further answering allege and say that the claim of said alleged Letters Patent respectively do not cover and recite legitimate patentable combinations but are merely for aggregations of all the respective elements set forth in each of said claims of old and well known elements and that said Letters Patent respectively are therefore null and void.

XI. These defendants further answering say, on information and belief, and therefore allege that long prior to any alleged invention by said Frederic J. Ball of the alleged discoveries described and claimed in said alleged patent No. 671,747, the same and all material parts thereof were fully described and patented and published in the following Letters Patent of the United States :-

Letters Patent to Arthur G. Cook, No. 594,195 dated Nov. 23, 1897

George Reade Baldwin 436,072 Sept. 9, 1890

Benjamin W. Grist 599,779 Mar. 1, 1898

Warren S. Belding 440,688 Nov. 18, 1890

Byron Jackson 502,820 Aug. 8, 1893

Winfield S. Rodgers 588,356 Aug. 17, 1897

Everett G. Lewis 343,465 June 8, 1886

Nottingham and Tucker 502,446 Aug. 1, 1893

Frank L.O. Wadsworth 547,701 Oct. 8, 1895

Hinsdale Smith 626,445 June 6, 1899

Herbert L. Sheperd 475,901 May 31, 1892

Hinsdale Smith 626,444 June 6, 1899

Carl C. Riotte 626,395 June 6, 1899

Clough and Bush 615,430 Dec. 6, 1898

Harold P. Brown 603,253 May 3, 1898

Benjamin C. Pole 577,065 Feb. 16, 1897

Walter Ames 548,860 Oct. 29, 1895

Jacob Redding 526,199 Sept. 18, 1894

John H. Pendleton 520,801 June 5, 1894

Lawrence Heath 458,830 Sept. 1, 1891

Julius Jetter 403,756 May 21, 1889

Albert Hampe 403,663 May 21, 1889

Jones and Rogers 387,235 Aug. 7, 1888

Abe L. Cushman 328,014 Oct. 13, 1885

Issac Lehmer 320,665 June 23, 1885

Alexander M. Damon 123,618 Feb. 13, 1872

Browne and Goodwin 81,248 Aug. 18, 1868

Julius F. Rochow 37,110 Dec. 9, 1862

Also in the following British patents:

7350 of 1889 to Sheperd,

7410 of 1893 to Beugger

296 of 1894 to Brooks

2891 of 1896 to Clough and Bush

7086 of 1897 to Rodgers

7062 of 1900 to Rica

20535 of 1900 to Wilcox

XII. These defendants further answering say, on information and belief, and therefore allege, that long prior to any alleged invention by said Frederic J. Ball of the alleged discoveries described and claimed in said alleged patent No. 749,516, the same and all material parts thereof were fully described and patented and published in the following Letters Patent of the United States:

Letters Patent to Almon E. Norris, No. 748,412 dated Dec. 29, 1903

John H. Barnard, 745,952 Dec. 1, 1903

Ward Decker, 743,467 Nov. 10, 1903

Fay O. Farwell, 743,156 Nov. 3, 1903

M.W. Talen, C.F. Pearson, E.B. Christopher, G.E. Johnson, L.A. Lindberg, 736,172 Aug.11,1903

Nye and Jenkins 733,076 July 7, 1903

Charles F. Roper 731,503 June 23, 1903

Leon J. LePontois 731,470 June 23, 1903

Lawrence E. Robinson 725,991 Apr. 21, 1903

Walter S. Austin 725,812 Apr. 21, 1903

Middleton Crawford 725,223 Apr. 14, 1903

Charles E. Duryea 725,616 Apr. 14, 1903

Charles J. Cook, 724,263 Mar. 31, 1903

Robert Symmonds, Jr., 723,758 Mar. 24, 1903

Allan C. Sargent 722,458 Mar. 10, 1903

Jeffrey and Symmonds 721,807 Mar. 3, 1903

Colcord and Upton 721,401 Feb. 24, 1903

Carl C. Riotte, 721,093 Feb. 17, 1903

Ralph B. Hain 719,327 Jan. 27, 1903

Colcord Upton 691,508 Jan. 21, 1902

George W. Waltenbaugh 653,633 July 10, 1900

Leonard H. Dyer 643,595 Feb. 13, 1900

Joseph M. Ough 716,929 Dec. 30, 1902

Alexander T. Brown 702,280 June 10, 1902

Charles S. Parcells 702,243 June 10, 1902

E.M. and M. Vrard, H. Vendredy, P. Duitte, and H. Gauthier, 696,285 Mar. 25, 1902

Harry W. Summer 694,692 Mar. 4, 1902

Harry Rose 694,197 Feb. 25, 1902

Colcord Upton 687,172 Nov. 19, 1901

Walter G. Wilson 675,433 June 4, 1901

Hans Sattler 673,926 May 14, 1901

Frank B. Stearns 673,739 May 7, 1901

Lewis Jones, Jr., 672,779 Apr. 23, 1901

Andrew L. Riker 662,306 Nov. 20, 1900

Henry B. Binsse, 626,884 June 13, 1899

Hinsdale Smith 626,444 June 6, 1899

Winfield S. Rogers 588,356 Aug. 17, 1897

Herbert L. Sheperd 475,901 May 31, 1892

Lawrence Heath 458,830 Sept. 1, 1891.

XIII. These defendants further answering say, on information and belief, and therefore allege, that long prior to any alleged invention by said Frederic J. Ball of the alleged discoveries described and claimed in said alleged patent No. 749,602, the same and all material parts thereofwere fully described and patented and published in the following Letters Patent of the United States:

Letters Patent to Carl C. Riotte, No. 749,580 dated Jan. 12, 1904

Frederic J. Ball, 743,053 Nov. 3, 1903

Reissue, George E. Tregurtha 12,144 Aug. 11, 1903

Harry A. Knox 734,891 July 28, 1903

Middletown Crawford 725,223 Apr. 14, 1903

Charles J. Cook 724,263 Mar. 31, 1903

Robert Symmonds, Jr., 723,758 Mar. 24, 1903

Alden E. Osborn 721,736 Mar. 3, 1903

Carl C. Riotte 721,093 Feb. 17, 1903

Ralph B. Hain 719,327 Jan. 27, 1903

Charles F. Smith 701,634 June 3, 1902

Harry W. Sumner 694,692 Mar. 4, 1902

Titus, Burt and Smith 691,300 Jan. 14, 1902

Walter G. Wilson 675,433 June 4, 1901

Frank L. Dyer 671,721 Apr. 9, 1901

Andrew L. Riker 662,306 Nov. 20, 1900

Charles W. DeMooy 660,564 Oct. 30, 1900

John J. Leary 654,798 July 31,1900

Hinsdale Smith 626,445 June 6, 1899

Arthur G. Cooke 594,195 Nov. 23, 1897

Gustav A. Anderson 555,295 Feb. 25, 1896

Frank L.O. Wadsworth 547,701 Oct. 8, 1895

Mann, Smith and Read 523,221 July 17, 1894

George E. Hoyt 520,313 May 22, 1894

Nottingham and Tucker 502,446 Aug. 1, 1893

Everett C. Lewis 343,465 June 8, 1886

XIV. These defendants further jointly and severally answering say, that they are informed and believe and therefore aver that long before any pretended invention by said Frederic Ball of the alleged improvements described and claimed in said Letters Patent 671,747, the same were publicly known to, used and sold by Henry Ford of Detroit, Michigan, at Detroit, Michigan and elsewhere.

They are informed and believe and therefore aver that long before any pretended invention by said Frederic Ball of the alleged improvements described and claimed in said Letters Patent No. 747,516, the same were publicly known to, used and sold Henry Ford, of Detroit, Michigan, at Detroit, Michigan, and elsewhere.

And they are also informed and believe and therefore aver that long before any pretended invention by said Frederic Ball of the alleged improvements described and claimed in said Letters Patent, No. 747,602, the same were publicly known to, used and sold by Henry Ford, of Detroit, Michigan, at Detroit, Michigan, and elsewhere.

XV. These defendants jointly and severally for further answer and deny that they have, or either of them, or that said firm, under the name of John Wanamaker, ever made, sold or used or caused to be made, sold or used, or threatened to make, sell or use, within the limits of the United States, and especially within the said Eastern District of New York, any vehicles, devices or apparatus containing, embodying or employing said alleged inventions, improvements or discovery described or claimed in said alleged Letters Patent No. 671,747; 749,516; and 749,602, issued to the said Frederic J. Ball or any substantial or material part or parts thereof as alleged in said Bill of Complaint or that they have violated or infringed upon any exclusive right or privilege of the complainants in any way whatsoever by reason of the premises or that said complainants have sustained any damage or injury of any nature whatsoever by reason of any such alleged infringement by the said defendants of the said alleged patents or of any of the said complainants alleged rights thereunder.

These defendants further answering deny that the complainants would, but for said alleged wrongful acts and deeds of these defendants have made large gains, profits and advantages or any gains, profits or advantages whatever from the making, using or selling of said alleged inventions or discoveries.

And these defendants further aver that they have not derived either jointly or severally or are still deriving and receiving any gain or profit by reason of the unlawful and wrongful use of said alleged inventions or any of them, and deny that the said complainants are entitled to any recovery or such alleged gains or profits or to any recovery whatsoever.

And these defendants further answering deny every allegation in said Bill of Complaint contained not herein before admitted, answered or denied, all of which matters and things these defendants are ready to aver, maintain and prove as this Honorable Court shall direct, and pray to be hence dismissed with their reasonable costs and charges in this behalf sustained.