Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

MARKING GOODS "PATENT APPLIED FOR"-Continued,

not an offense, for the reason that it did not import that the article was cov-
ered by a subsisting patent. Schwebel v. Bothe, 672.

MASTER'S REPORT.

1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES-EXCEPTIONS TO MASTER's Report.—The master having
found that the complainant had failed to establish by trustworthy legal proof
any basis for the computation of profits, stopped his investigations upon the
ground that as the defendants had destroyed the complainant's standard there
could be no standard until the complainant voluntarily created one. *Web-
ster Loom Company v. E. S. & N. D. Higgins, 573.

2. Report ReCOMMITTED.-Report recommitted to master, with instructions to
estimate the amount of profits in accordance with the rule stated in the opin-
ion of Judge Wallace in a previons case. *Id.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES. See Damages and Profits; Master's Report.

1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES.-The rule that "when the entire profit of a business or
undertaking results from the use of the invention, the patentee will be en-
tipled to recover the entire profits, if he elects that remedy," applied. *Hurl-
but v. Schillinger et al., 459.

2. SAME. The payment of a sum in settlement of a claim for an alleged infringe-
ment of a patent can not be taken as a standard to measure the value of the
improvements patented in determining the damages sustained by the owner
of the patent in other cases of infringement. *Cornely v. Marckwald, 482.
MECHANICAL SKILL. See Aggregation, 2; Invention, 1, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14; Particular
Patents, 15, 45.

1. MECHANICAL SKILL.-Where the employment of a device to effect a certain pur-
pose was such as would naturally suggest itself to any mechanic, and the same
device was used in the new relation to perform an office exactly analogous to
that in which it had been frequently formerly used, Held such employment of
said device did not constitute invention. *Day v. The Fair Haven and West-
ville Railway Company, 647.

2. MECHANICAL SKILL.-To do that which any competant mechanic familiar with
devices well known in the state of the art could have done readily and suc-
cessfully, upon the mere suggestion of the purpose which it was desirable to
effect, does not constitute invention. *Aron v. The Manhattan Railway Com-
pany, 650.

3. SAME.-The mere application to a new situation of old devices which have been
previously applied to analogous uses does not constitute invention. *Id.
METHOD. See Interference, 13.

MISTAKE. See Reissues, 2, 3, 4.

MODEL. See Priority of Invention, 2, 4.

MODIFICATIONS OF PATENTED INVENTIONS. See Infringement, 9.
MOTION FOR ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT.

PRACTICE IN THE COURTS.-Upon a motion for an attachment against the defend-
ants for contempt in violating an injunction granted at final hearing, Held
that as the present alleged infringing device differs from that adjudged to be
an infringement, and also from the patented device, the question presented
ought not to be determined upon such a motion as this, but only by an orig.
inal suit. *The Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Company v. Simpson et al., 559.

MOTION FOR REHEARING. See Rehearing, 15, 16, 17.

MOTION TO CHANGE DATE OF FILING A COMPLETE APPLICATION. See
Interference, 20.

MOTION TO DISMISS AN APPEAL. See Interference, 7, 8, 9.

MOTION TO DISSOLVE AN INTERFERENCE. See Interference, 5, 6, 10, 11, 19.

1. APPEAL ON MOTION TO DISSOLVE AN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN AN APPLICATION
AND A PATENT ISSUED INADVERTENTLY DURING THE PENDENCY OF THAT

MOTION TO DISSOLVE AN INTERFERENCE-Continued.

APPLICATION.-When an interference is declared between an application and
a patent issued inadvertently during the pendency of that application, and
the applicant files a motion to dissolve the interference and to stay proceed-
ings without having made any proof of service of notice of said motion upon
the opposite party, said motion will not be entertained. (Rulė 153.) Bech-
man v. Johnson, 184.

2. SAME-RULE 94.-The case is the same as if the interference had been declared
between two pending applications, and the interference is rightly declared
when declared under Rule 94, paragraph 1, without the affidavit called for
by Rule 94, paragraph 2. Id.

3. SAME-PETITION.-While a motion to dissolve the interference and suspend pro-
ceedings will be refused if made without notice to the opposite party, Quære
whether in a case like the present a petition, without notice to the opposite
party to vacate the order establishing the interference might not be sus-
tained. Id.

4. AMENDMENT Pending the INTERFERENCE. Pending the interference in such
case an amendment which does not come within the terms of Rules 106, 107,
109 will not be received or considered. (Rule 130.) Id.

5. MOTION TO DISSOLVE INTERFERENCE ON GROUND of Non-patenTABILITY MORE
THAN TWENTY DAYS AFTER APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS-RULE
122.-When a motion to dissolve an interference on the ground of non-pat-
entability is made more than twenty days after approval of the preliminary
statements it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the Examiner of In-
terferences to grant such motion when it appears that no testimony had been
taken, so that the case had not advanced beyond the stage which interfer-
ence proceedings customarily reach within the first twenty days after ap-
proval of the preliminary statements. Reynolds v. Haberman, 195.

6. MOTION TO DISSOLVE ON THE GROUND OF IRREGULARITY IN DEclaring the
INTERFERENCE-NEW MATTER.-Where there was a motion to dissolve an
interference upon the ground of irregularity in declaring the same, and it
was alleged therein that such irregularity consisted in the fact that the
claims of one of the parties were based upon new matter introduced into his
descriptions and drawings more than two and a half years after his applica-
tion was originally filed, and it appeared that such party, if the preliminary
statements were correct, was unquestionably the original and first inventor,
Held that it should first be determined who was the original and first in-
ventor of the issue in controversy, leaving the ex parte rights of the prevail-
ing party for subsequent adjudication. Steward v. Ellis v. Lee v. Howe, 243.
7. SAME-RULE 122.-Upon the consideration of such motion, the question is not
whether there has been irregularity merely, but whether there has been such
irregularity as will defeat the purpose for which alone interference proceed-
ings are authorized by the statute. Id.

8. SAME-RULE 124.-From a decision of the Examiner upou a motion to dissolve,
involving the right of one of the parties to make the claini in issue, there is
no appeal to the Commissioner.

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT.

Id.

MOTION TO VACate Judgment.—Held, further, that applicant might make a motion
to vacate the judgment in interference so far as it related to subject-matter
not common to both parties, and that if the facts were as alleged proper re-
lief might be afforded. Ex parte Booth, 242.

NEW MATTER. See Drawings, 3; Motion to Dissolve Interference, 6; Oath.
NEW USE.

See Invention, 21, 22; Use of Patented Inventions.

OATH. See Appeal to Examiners-in-Chief, 3; Interference, 5, 6, 21, 22.

RULE 48.—The office of a supplemental oath, as set forth in Rule 48, is to justify the
introduction by amendment of a claim not substantially embraced in the
statement of invention or claim originally presented, and affords no justifica-
tion for the introduction of matter by way of amendment which is not sub-
stantially described or disclosed in the application as filed. Steward v. Ellis
v. Lee v. Howe, 243

OATH OF APPLICANT. See Assignment of Void Patents; Citizenship; Trade-
Marks, 5.

1. VALIDITY OF PATENT-APPLICATION—OATH.-The patent law makes it essen-
tial to the validity of a patent that it shall be granted on the application,
supported by the oath, of the original and first inventor. *Kennedy v. Hazel-
ton, 349.

2. SAME-SAME-WHEN VOID.-A patent which is not supported by the oath of
the inventor, but applied for by one who is not the inventor, is unauthorized
by law, and void.

*Id.

OBJECTIONS. See Examination of Application, 2.

OLD DEVICES. See Invention, 7, 15, 18; Mechanical Skill; Particular Patents, 16,
18, 57, 58.

OLD ELEMENTS. See Aggregation, 2; Combinations; Particular Palents, 15, 32, 43.
OMISSION OF PARTS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 11.
PATENTS ISSUED INADVERTENTLY. See Interference, 23.
PARTIAL USE. See Infringement, 10, 20.
PARTICULAR PATENTS.

See Infringement.

1. AM ENDE-COMPOSITION OF BORATED COTTON.-Letters Patent No. 181,024,
granted August 15, 1876, to Charles G. Am Ende, for an improvement in bo-
rated cotton, Held valid and not anticipated by such preparations as "lint
steeped in a hot, saturated solution of boracic acid" or "wadding saturated
with a certain quantity of glycerine" or boracic acid dissolved in glycer-
ine. Am Ende v. Seabury & Johnson, 485.

2. ANDERSON—DRAWERS.-Letters Patent No. 265,733, granted October 10, 1832, to
Robert H. Anderson, for an improvement in drawers, not infringed by an ar-
ticle manufactured by the appellees for more than two years prior to the ap-
pellant's application for a patent. *Anderson v. Miller et al., 303.

3. BALLARD AND WADDELL-STREET-PAVEMENTS.-Letters Patent No. 94,062,
granted August 24, 1869, to Ballard and Waddell, for an improvement in
street-pavements, and Letters Patent No. 94,063, granted same date to the
same parties, for an improved mode of cutting blocks for street-pavement,
Held void for want of patentable novelty. *Brown v. The District of Columbia,
398.

4. BATE-PRESERVING MEATS DURING TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE.-Letters
Patent No. 197,314, granted to John J. Bate, November 20, 1877, for the term
of seventeen years, did not expire with the term of the first Canadian patent
obtained for five years, but coutinned in force till the end of the extended
term of fifteen years-to wit, January 9, 1892-said Canadian patent having
never ceased to exist, but having been in force continuonsly from January 9,
1877. *Bate Refrigerating Company v. Hammond et al., 330.

5. BÉNÉ-PROCESS OF REFINING AND BLEACHING HAIR.-Reissued Letters Patent
No. 8,637, grauted March 25, 1879, to John Béné, for an improvement in the
process of refining and bleaching hair, Held, except as to the second claim,
not full and clear enough to give one skilled in chemistry such an idea of the
particnlar kinds and character of the chemicals or combination of chemicals,
with the relative proportions of each, as would enable him to use the inven-
tion without having to resort to experiments of his own to discover the in-
gredients. * Béné et al. v. Jeantel, 408.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

6. SAME-CONSTRUCTION AND LIMITATION OF PATENT.-The patent limited to the
second claim is to be construed as one for a process of refining hair by treat-
ing it in a bath composed of a solution of chlorine salt dissolved in an excess
of muriatic acid, and the claims are to be limited accordingly. *Id.

7. SAME-INFRINGEMENT.—Thus limited and construed the patent is not infringed,
and the allegation that the product cannot be produced except by treating
the hair in a bath composed of chlorine salt dissolved in an excess of muriatic
acid, or a solution of their (chemical) equivalents, is not established. *Id.
8. BRINKERHOFF-RECTAL SPECULUMS.-The first claim of Letters Patent No.
224,991, granted to A. W. Brinkerhoff March 2, 1880, for an improvement in
rectal speculums, is for a slide extending the entire length of the tube. Held
anticipated by the older art. *Brinkerhoff v. Aloe, 281.

9. BRUSH-ELECTRIC LAMPS-VOD.-Reissued Letters Patent No. 8,718, granted
May 20, 1879, to Charles F. Brush, for an improvement in electric lamps.
Held to be anticipated by the invention of one Charles H. Hayes. Brush et
al. v. Condit et al., 637.

[ocr errors]

10. COWING-STREET PAVEMENTS.-Letters Patent No. 101,590, granted to Turner
Cowing April 5, 1870, for a new mode of constructing wood pavement for
streets, cannot be regarded as possessing patentable novelty. *Brown v.
The District of Columbia, 398.

11. CROSS-PACKING FOR OIL-WELLS.-The second claim of reissued Letters Patent
No. 7,772, granted July 3, 1877, to John R. Cros, for an improvement in
packing for oil-wells, obtained twelve years after the date of the original
patent, is an undue expansion of the first claim of the original patent. Con-
solidated Oil Well Packer Company v. Galey, 568.

12 CUBLEY-BANJOS.-Banjos made under Letters Patent No. 274,915, granted
April 3, 1883, to E. J. Cubley, for improvement in banjos, in which the parch-
ment rests directly on a rim consisting of a metal shell, in form like the old
wooden rim, but differing from any rim previously made, and producing by
such rim distinctive musical properties, do not infringe Letters Patent issued
May 14, 1878, to C. E. Dobson, for an improvement consisting of a ring, either
of metal or wood, to ease the wear of the parchment against the rim, and im-
prove the tone of the instrument; nor do they infringe Letters Patent issued
November 8, 1881, to Henry C. Dobson, whose improvement consists of a
metal ring between the parchment and a rim of wood and metal, and which
eases the parchment, as does the ring in the first patent, and produces a me-
tallic musical sound. *Dobson et al. v. Cubley, 602.
13. DAY-TRACK-CLEARERS-VOID.-Reissued Letters Patent No. 8,388, granted
August 27, 1878, to Augustus Day, for an improvement in track-clearers,
Held to be void for want of patentable novelty. * Day v. The Fair Haven and
Westville Railway Company, 647.

14. DE QUILLFELDT-BOTTLE-STOPPERS-REISSUES.-Reissue Letters Patent No.
7,722, granted June 5, 1877, to Charles De Quillfeldt, for an improvement in
bottle-stoppers, construed, and Held that the first claim, when read in con-
nection with the specification and drawings of the original patent, contains
the same elements found in the first claim of the original patent, combined
and operated in the same way and producing the same results. *Putnam et
al. v. The Keystone Bottle-Stopper Company et al., 512.

15. DOWLING-FEED MECHANISM FOR ROLLER-MILLS.-Letters Patent No. 289,518,
granted December 4, 183, to Daniel E. Dowling, for an improvement in feed
mechanism for roller-mills, Held to be an aggregation of old elements adapted
to a new machine, but producing practically the same results. No invention
involved in putting these devices together and placing them in the hopper
of a flouring-mill. The Consolidated Roller Mill Company v. Coombs, 526.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continned.

16. EDISON-AUTOGRAPHIC PRINTING.-Letters Patent No. 180,857, for an improve-
ment in autographic printing, granted to Thomas A. Edison August 8, 1876,
cannot be regarded as a pioneer patent in this art. There could be no broad
claim for printing with a paper stencil, semi-liquid ink, and a roller. Neither
could there be a broad claim for a puncturing device. Both were old. *Ed-
ison et al. v. Klaber, 494.

17. EPPELSHEIMER-CLAMP APPARATUS FOR CONNECTING STREET-CARS, ETC.-Let-
ters Patent No. 160,757, granted March 16, 1875, to William Eppelsheimer,
for an improvement in clamp apparatus for connecting street-cars, etc., Held
to be infringed by the defendant's device. Root v. Third Avenue Railroad
Company, 555.

18. GORDON-APPARATUS FOR COOLING and Drawing BEER.-Letters Patent No.
248,646, granted to Charles Gordon, October 25, 1881, for an improvement in
apparatus for cooling and drawing beer, Held to be anticipated by an appa-
ratus that was practical and successful, embodying the same invention as
the patent, and in existence prior to the time when the invention was made
by said patentee. *Magin v. Carle, 646.

19 GORHAM-Wash-Board FRAMES.-Letters Patent No. 223,338, granted January
6, 1880, to John M. Gorbam, for an improvement in wash-board frames, con-
strued and Held not to cover a protector which does not have the yielding,
elastic, or resilient function described in claim 3, and is not accompanied by
a spring or constructed substantially as described in the specification. *Sar
gent et al. v. Burgess, 339.

-

20. SAME-INFRINGEMENT. Said patent is not infringed by a protector constructed
in accordance with the description contained in Letters Patent No. 255,555,
granted to Charles H. Williams March 28, 1882, having no spring and no
elastic or resilient quality; and which does not yield to pressure, and has no
capacity of returning automatically to its normal position. *Id.

21. GRAHAM-HARVESTERS.-Letters Patent No. 74, 342, granted to Alvaro B. Gra-
ham February 11, 1868, for an improvement in harvesters, construed, and
claims 1 and 2 Held, in view of the state of the art and of the special limita-
tions put upon them on the requirement of the Pateut Office, to be limited to
the special construction and arrangement set forth in the claims. McCor-
mick et al. v. Whitmer, 291.

22. SAME-Same-InfringEMENT.-Under this construction of claims 1 and 2 of
the plaintiff's patent the defendants have not infringed. *ld.
23. GRANT-REELING AND WINDING SILK AND THREAD.-The claims of Letters

Patent No. 267,192, granted November 7, 1882, to James M. Grant, for im-
provements in the art of reeling and winding silk and other thread, are for
the skein merely as a product, and are void for want of novelty. *Grant v.
Walter, 476.

24. GRAY-GRINDING-MILLS.-Letters Patent No. 222,895, granted December 23, 1879,
to William D. Gray, for an improvement in grinding-mills, construed and
sustained, and Held that Gray's invention is for such an improvement as to
entitle him to a liberal construction of the claims of the patent and a liberal
application of the doctrine of equivalents. *The Consolidated Roller Mill Com-
pany v. Coombs, 526.

25. HAKE VISITING-CARDS.-Letters Patent No. 219,464, granted September 9,
1879, to Philip Hake, for an improvement in visiting-cards, Held valid as to
the first claim, which covers the process of arranging cards in oblique packs
and beveling and ornamenting and finishing the sides and ends of the whole
pack as though it were one card, but invalid as to the second claim, covering
the product, which is old in the sense of the patent law. "Hake v. Brown et
al., 470.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »