 The defendants alleged that Nicholson's patent was invalid because the invention lacked novelty, and that he had been publicly using the system for the previous six years prior to the issuance of the patent, thus constituting an abandonment of his right to a patent under the "On-sale bar".The lower court found for Nicholson, and the defendants appealed.Justice Bradley first examined the prior art in both the U.S. and England, and determined that nothing therein substantiated the defendants' claim of lack of novelty.