Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

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.
PENALTY. See Marking Goods "Patent Applied For."

PETITION. See Interference, 11; Rehearing, 2; Rejected Applications.
PIONEER INVENTIONS. See Infringement, 3.

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
1, 1870, substituted for the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia as the
tribunal having final jurisdiction, and at a later date the office of Commis-
sioner was recognized as a continuing one, placed upon the same footing as
a court, and given the power of granting new trials. Daniels v. Morgan, 150.
2. IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS
ARE VALID.-Since the Commissioner of Patents in the discharge of his judi-
cial duties in determining the question of priority between interfering par-
ties exercises the function of a court, reasonable rules and regulations, based
upon analogies derived from the procedure in courts of law, are valid rules
and regulations when prescribed by the competent authority. Id.
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. See Designs 1; Patents, 3.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. See Interference, 5, 17; Motion to Dissolve Interfer-
ence, 5, 6.

PRIORITY OF INVENTION. See Employer and Employé; Evidence of Invention
Abroad; Interference, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22; Invention, 16; Motion to Dissolve
Interference, 6; Rehearing, 10, 19.

1. PRIORITY WITH INVENTOR WHO REDUCES TO PRACTICE.-The purpose of the
law is to benefit the public as well as to protect the inventor, and the in-
ventor who reduces his invention to practice in such a complete way that
he at once perfects it as an invention, and at the same time practically de-
monstrates its utility, is clearly to be preferred to one who merely made hints
and suggestions to others and failed himself to act upon them. Green V.
Hall et al., 110.

2. MODELS NOT EVIDENCE OF REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.-It is well settled law
that a working model, designed and intended as such, is not a reduction to
practice. Mere working models, allowed to rest in oblivion for many years,
will not prevail to establish priority when application for patent is delayed
and not filed until after another and more diligent inventor has entered the
same field of invention and established his claim as an independent inventor.
Id.

3. WORKING Model not REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.-In the decision complained
of (46 O. G., 1515, ante, 110) it was held that a working model designed and
intended as such is not a reduction to practice, Held no error. A model of
drawing, although a sufficient foundation for a claim to priority, as was held
in Loom Co. v. Higgins, must be followed up with reasonable diligence in or-
der to establish full title to priority. Green v. Hall v. Siemens v. Field, 161.
4. INTENT OF INVENTOR.-Where it was alleged as error that the Commissioner erro-
neously decided that one of the parties did not intend at the time he con-
structed the apparatus upon which his claim to priority was based to use it
practically upon an electric railway, and it appeared that the Commissioner
did not decide what was the ultimate intention of such party with reference
to his invention, but simply decided that certain models were designed and
intended as models, Held no error. Id.

5. SAME.-Where it was alleged as error that the Commissioner held that priority
of invention was to be determined by the intent of the inventor as to the
use to which his apparatus should be put, and it appeared that the actual
finding of the Commissioner upon that subject was limited to the intent with
which certain models were made and used, Held no error. Id.

6. PRIORITY OF INVENTION-LACHES.-When one of the parties to an interference
has made the invention independently of the other party and has reduced it
to practice upon an extended commercial scale, and has obtained a patent
which he has held unchallenged for nearly a year, he must be adjudged the
prior inventor as against the other who, though he may have been the first
to conceive the invention, without any excuse for his non-action, never did

PRIORITY OF INVENTION-Continued.

anything toward reducing it to practice, but who bases his claim to priority
on a previous application filed by him which contained claims for the inven-
tion in controversy, which claims were rejected and positively and delib-
erately abandoned nearly four years before the filing of the application in-
volved in this interference. Beach v. Fowler, 187.

7. WHAT IS SUFFICIENT Proof of CONCEPTION OF INVENTION BY ORAL DISCLOS-
URE.-The descriptive language used should be such as to disclose the in-
vention as a drawing would disclose it. The description, on its face, as de-
tailed by the witness, must show not only that the applicant had a conception
of the desirability of doing the thing, but also a conception of a way of
doing it, and a way of doing it so definitely thought out that the listener, if
skilled in the art, could produce the invention from the description, at least
in a rude form of embodiment. Wherry v. Heck, 201.

8. PROPERTY IN PATENTS.-Property in patents ought not to be created as against
a rival applicant first to reduce to practice and first in the Office upon mere
verbal testimony indefinite in its character unaided by the production of
memoranda, drawings, or models under circumstances which in themselves
tend to indicate its intrinsic improbability. Id.

9. SUFFICIENCY OF AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 75.-Where an affidavit filed under
Rule 75 showed that the applicant had conception of the invention prior to
the dates of the references, but there was no complete reduction to practice
until after said dates, and also stated that he had used "every diligence
possible in putting the invention into use," without setting forth facts tend-
ing to show such diligence, Held not to be a sufficient compliance with the
rule. Ex parte Hunter, 218.

PRIOR USE. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 8, 9, 10.

PROCESS. See Disclaimers; Drawings; Inventions, 3, 4, 5, 11; Use of Patented In-
ventions.

PROCESS CLAIMS.

1. The claims have been rejected on the ground that they cover a process which is
"evidently and necessarily the operation contemplated in the construction
of the machine" and "the inevitable result of such operation."

2 PROCESSES Which Depend UPON PARTICULAR MECHANISM.-It being conceded
that a process is not patentable which is merely the effect or function of spe-
cific mechanism, the question necessarily arises in every case whether the
process claimed is capable of being performed by a machine differently
organized from that described, or even without an organized machine-by
ordinary tools or by hand. Held in the case under consideration that the
processes set forth in the claims do not depend for their performance on the
particular machine described. Ex parte Young, 116.

3. WHEN ENTITLED TO THE PROCESS.-An inventor who proceeds to invent a ma-
chine designed solely to carry out a particular process, and the only function
of which is to execute that process, is entitled to protection. A process
which is distinct and separate from the machine does not lose its identity
because of any course pursued by the inventor in prosecuting his claims for
a patent or from the fact that he may not at the time of completing his ma-
chine have been fully conscious that he had also invented the process. Should
applicant, however, take out his patent for the machine without defining or
claiming his process, he probably would unconsciously dedicate the process
to the public; but if at any time before he comes to the Office or takes out
his patent he discovers or becomes conscious of the fact that his invention
is of a twofold character-viz., that it constitutes both the machine and the
process which it executes-and prepares his application accordingly, there
can be no reason for holding that he has merged the two inventions or that
the two are in fact one. Id.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »