PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued. without regard to form; (3) the combination of a conductor of carbon made of fibrous or textile material in an arched form, and the glass chamber hermetically sealed and deprived of carbon-consuming gas. Held, in view of the state of the art and the evident necessities of the case, that these claims amounted to the broad claim of the exclusive use in incandescing lamps of all carbons made of fibrous or textile materials. The Consolidated Electric Light Company v. The McKeesport Light Company, 657. 69. SAME-ANTICIPATED BY EDISON.-Held, further, from the evidence in the case, that Sawyer and Man did not invent a successful lamp, and did not discover the principle on which such a lamp could be made; but that the true principle (that of adopting high resistance in the conductor with a small illuminating surface and a corresponding diminution in the strength of the current) for constructing such a lamp was described in the patents of Edison applied for in April, 1879, and November 4, 1879, and granted January 27, 1880, No. 223,898, and May 4, 1880, No. 227,229, respectively, as exhibited in the filamental or thread-like conductors or burners inclosed in a more perfect vacuum than had ever before been used. *Id. 70. SCHILLINGer-Concrete PAVEMENTS.-Reissued Letters Patent No. 4,364, granted May 2, 1871, to John J. Schillinger, for an improvement in concrete pavements, as it stood after the filing of the disclaimer (March 1, 1875,) was not open to the objection that it was not for the same invention as that of the original patent No. 105,599, dated July 19, 1870. Hurlbut v. Schillinger et al., 459. 71. SHANNON-TEMPORARY BINDERS.-The first claim of Letters Patent No. 217,907, granted July 29, 1879, to James S. Shannon, for improvements in temporary binders, as modified by a disclaimer limiting the combination by the addition of the words, "when the fixed and vibrating wires are used in pairs, whether operating simultaneously or each separately," Held void, in view of the prior state of the art, as a mere duplication. "The Schlicht & Field Company v. The Sherwood Letter File Company, 271. 72. SHANNON-PAPER FILE.-The first claim of Letters Patent No. 254,847, granted March 14, 1882, to James S. Shannon, for an improvement in paper files, Held void as covering only an aggregation of parts, and not a patentable combination. *The Schlicht & Field Company v. The Sherwood Letter File Company, 274. 73. SHUMARD-SASH BALANCE.-The novel feature of Letters Patent No. 285,079, granted September 18, 1883, to Warren Shumard, for an improvement in sash-balances, is a brake so arranged as to be adjustable from the outside; and the second and third claims of this patent are infringed by a sashbalance having a band-brake bearing on the periphery of the drum. *Coleman Hardware Company et al. v. Kellogg, Johnson & Bliss et al., 542. 74. SAME-SASH-BALANCE-INFRINGEMENT.-Patent No. 285,079, granted September 18, 1883, to Warren Shumard, for a sash-balance which has a brake so arranged as to be adjustable from the outside, the brake being an ordinary brake-shoe bearing on the periphery of the drum, with the pressure secured by a spring, is infringed by the use of a band-brake bearing on the periphery of the drum and adjustable from the outside, band-brakes having been well known equivalents for spring-brakes at the time of the issue of the Shumard patent. Coleman Hardware Company et al. v. Kellogg et al., 589. 75. SMITH AND SHANNON-PAPER-HOLDERS.-The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh claims of Patent No. 217,909, granted July 29, 1879, to Frederick W. Smith and James S. Shannon, for an improvement in paper-holders, sustained (citing Shannon v. Printing Company, 9 Fed. Rep., 205), and Held to be infringed by a letter-file having its receiving-wires arranged to rock forward instead of backward out of contact with its arched wires. Schlicht & Field Company v. Chicago Sewing Machine Company et al., 374. 76. STANLEY-APPARATUS FOR DISTILLING TURPENTINE, &C.-Reissued Letters Patent No. 10,689, granted to James D. Stanley, February 16, 1886, for an apparatus for distilling turpentine and for the purification of the crude products of the distillation thereof, Held to rest for its validity upon a very narrow margin of invention. * Fernoline Chemical Company v. Carolina Oil and Creosote Company, 352. 77. Stuart-COMPOSITE PAVEMENTS.-Letters Patent No. 269,480, granted December 19, 1882, to Peter Stuart, for an improvement in composite pavements, again sustained and Held not anticipated by Patent No. 90,825, June 1, 1869, to Dotch and Duempelman. "Stuart v. Thorman et al., 289. 78. TIBBE-PIPES.-Letters Patent No. 205,816, granted July 9, 1878, to Henry Tibbe, for an improvement in pipes, Held, in view of the state of the art, void for want of patentable novelty. *H. Tibbe & Son Manufacturing Company v. Heineken, 478. 79. Tondeur-GLASS-ANNEALING FURNACES.-Letters Patent No. 258,156, dated May 16, 1882, granted to Cleon Tondeur, for improvements in glass-annealing furnaces, sustained, and the defendants adjudged to infringe the same. Following Tondeur v. Stewart, 28 Fed. Rep., 561; C. D., 1886, 464.) *Tondeur v. Chambers, 364. 80. VOM HOFE-BOTTLE-STOPPERS.-Letters Patent No. 167,141, granted August 24, 1875, to William Vom Hofe, for an improvement in bottle-stoppers, not anticipated by a previous patent to said Vom Hofe, No. 163,533, dated May 18, 1875. * Putnam et al. v. The Keystone Bottle Stopper Company et al., 512. 81. WATSON-GRAIN-CAR DOORS.-Letters Patent No. 203,226, granted to Chauncey R. Watson, April 30, 1878, for improvement in grain-car doors, Held to be void for want of patentable novelty if construed to consist of the combination, in a freight car having an outside rigid door, of an inner flexible sliding grain-door. * Watson v. The Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Company, 677. 82. WILKERSON-DENTAL CHAIRS-ANTICIPATION.-Letters Patent No. 197,441, issued to Basil M. Wilkerson, November 20, 1877, for improvement in dental chairs, are not anticipated by the invention of Groff and Wilson, who invented improvements in a pneumatic pad for saddles and harness, which was an elastic pad, the object of which was to simply absorb moisture, while the patentee's pad was a stiff one to hold the head in place. * Morrison et al. v. The Canton Surgical and Dental Chair Company et al., 627. 83. WOOD-Carriage-Springs-REISSUE VOID.-Reissued Letters Patent No. 6,018, granted to Thomas H. Wood, August 18, 1874, for an improvement in carriagesprings, Held void, not only because it is for an invention not disclosed or suggested in the original, but also because, as in the case of Coon et al. v. Wilson (30 O. G., 889; C. D., 1885, 171; 113 U. S., 268), there was no defective or insufficient specification, and no mistake inadvertently committed in the wording of the claim of the original. J. B. Brewster & Co v. Shuler, 490. 84. SAME-PRIOR PUBLIC USE. The defense of prior public use also established. *Id. PARTIES IN INTEREST. See Interference, 4. PARTIES TO SUIT. See Damages and Profits, 7, Rehearing 19. PATENTABILITY. See Aggregation; Invention; Process, 1, 2, 3, 5. PATENTEES. See Validity of Patents. PATENTS. See Assignment of Void Patents; Construction of Claims; Construction of Specifications and Patents; Damages and Profits; Defective Patents; Joint Invention 2; Limitation of United States Patents by foreign patents previously granted, 4, 5, 6; Oath of Applicant, 1; Particular Patents; Validity of Patents. PATENTS-Continued. 1. PATENTS DEFINED-WHAT IS SECURED BY THE GRANT.-A patent for an invention conveys nothing which the Government owns or its predecessor ever owned, is the evidence of the inventor's exclusive right, and creates for him a property interest, which Government secures to him by a grant. *Marsh et al. v. Nichols, Shepherd & Company, 263. 2. WHAT IS REQUIRED TO SECURE the Grant.—This grant, however, is regulated by statute, and requires the signatures of all the officials required by statute. *Id. 3. PATENT PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY.-A patent issued to an applicant is only prima facie evidence that he is the inventor. Kennedy v. Hazelton, 349. PATENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS. See Reservation Clause. PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 4963, REVISED STATUTES. See Copyrights. PETITION. See Interference, 11; Rehearing, 2; Rejected Applications. POWER OF ATTORNEY. See Assignment by Attorney under Power of Attorney. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS. See Assignment by Attorney under Power of Attorney; Certified Copies as Evidence; Construction of Specifications and Patente 8; Decree; Defective Patents, 1, 2; Delay in bringing Suit; Designs, 1; Evidence; Infringement, 4; Marking Goods "Patent Applied for;" Measure of Damages, 2; Rehearing, 20, 21; Reissues,4; Separate Patents; Suits for Infringement; Suit in Equity for a Patent under section 4915, Revised Statutes,1; Testimony before Examiner; Trade-Marks, 17, 22, 25; Validity of Patents. 1. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-AMENDMENT OF EQUITY PLEADINGS.-Although under the acts of Congress the power of the courts of the United States with respect to the amendment of equity pleadings is plenary, the allowance of such amendment is a question of judicial discretion depending largely on the special circumstances of the cases. * United States of America v. The American Bell Telephone Company et al., 615. 2. SAME-SAME.-One of the defendants, C, filed a general answer to the bill, and another defendant, B, filed a plea and answer in support thereof. Before any evidence had been taken in the cause the defendant C asked leave to withdraw its answer and to file the same plea and answer in support thereof which had been filed by the defendant B. Held that the motion was not open to the objection of introducing a new defense on a new state of facts, or of changing the substance of the case made by the bill, or of setting up a merely technical defense, and that, as the convenience of the case would be best promoted by having the issues proceed pari passu as to each defendant, the motion should be granted. *Id. PRACTICE IN THE PATENT OFFICE.-See Abandoned Applications; Abandoned and Rejected Files; Abandonment; Amendments; Appeal to the Commissioner ; Appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief; Assignees; Attorneys; Caveats; Claims; Continuoue Application; Cross-References; Disclaimer; Division of Application; Drawings; Evidence of Invention Abroad; Examination of Application; Ezaminers; Interference; Invention, 17; Joinder of Invention; Motion to Dissolve Interference; Oath; Priority of Invention; Process; Public Use, 2; Reduotion to Practice; Reference to Another Pending Application; Rehearing, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21; Rejected Applications; Reservation Clause; Withdrawal of Cases from Issue. 1. RIGHT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS TO REHEAR THE DECISIONS OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE-HISTORY AND REVISIONS OF RULE 144 or THE RULES OF PRACTICE DISCUSSED AND DECISIONS THEREUNDER REVIEWED.-Rule 144 had its origin in an executive order, was transformed PRACTICE IN THE PATENT OFFICE-Continued. into a judicial rule when the Commissioner of Patents was, by act of July PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. See Interference, 5, 17; Motion to Dissolve Interfer- PRIORITY OF INVENTION. See Employer and Employé; Evidence of Invention 1. PRIORITY WITH INVENTOR WHO REDUCES TO PRACTICE.-The purpose of the 2. MODELS NOT EVIDENCE OF REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.-It is well settled law 3. WORKING Model not REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.-In the decision complained 5. SAME.-Where it was alleged as error that the Commissioner held that priority 6. PRIORITY OF INVENTION-LACHES.-When one of the parties to an interference PRIORITY OF INVENTION-Continued. anything toward reducing it to practice, but who bases his claim to priority 7. WHAT IS SUFFICIENT Proof of CONCEPTION OF INVENTION BY ORAL DISCLOS- 8. PROPERTY IN PATENTS.-Property in patents ought not to be created as against 9. SUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 75.-Where an affidavit filed under PRIOR USE. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 8, 9, 10. PROCESS. See Disclaimers; Drawings; Inventions, 3, 4, 5, 11; Use of Patented In- PROCESS CLAIMS. 1. The claims have been rejected on the ground that they cover a process which is 2 PROCESSES Which Depend UPON PARTICULAR MECHANISM.-It being conceded 3. WHEN ENTITLED TO THE PROCESS.-An inventor who proceeds to invent a ma- |