William K. Richardson: Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Claims, House of Representatives, Seventy-forth Congress, Second Session, on House Joint Resolution 498, for the Relief of William K. RichardsonU.S. Government Printing Office, 1936 - 268 halaman |
Istilah dan frasa umum
adapter air resistance angle Answer armor armor-piercing projectile Balle Benedict Crowell beveled base terminating bourrelet bullet caliber radius CHURCH Commissioner ELMORE common steel shell contour Court of Claims Cross-question curve CUSHMAN cylindrical body portion cylindrical portion Defendant defendant's Exhibit dimensions direct examination disclosed EKWALL exceeds the caliber Exhibit F Figure fire flight foot-seconds French fuse fuze Government shells inches infringement invention jectile l'Armee Belge length the caliber letter letters patent Lissak long point marked Plaintiff's Exhibit objection ogival head ogival surface Ordnance and Gunnery Ordnance Department patent in suit PITTENGER plaintiff's patent pressure prior art projectile shown projectiles illustrated range rear end reduced diameter referred res judicata Revue de l'Armee Richardson patent rotary velocity rotating band shot skin friction slightly exceeds Small Arms Smith drawing specification square base struck tapered base tapered rear tion United United States Army War Department witness
Bagian yang populer
Halaman 261 - A-200, under the provisions of the act of June 25, 1910, as amended by the act of July 1, 1918, (USC, title 35, sec.
Halaman 33 - The provision in section 5 of the act of June 25, 1910. as amended by the act of February...
Halaman 244 - Authorities concur that the substantial equivalent of a thing, in the sense of the Patent Law, is the same as the thing itself; so that if two devices do the same work in substantially the same way and accomplish substantially the same result, they are the same, even though they differ in name, form, or thape.
Halaman 224 - In this light to even the most skillful persons. It may have been under their very eyes. They may almost be said to have stumbled over it, but they certainly failed to see It, to estimate Its value, and to bring It into notice.
Halaman 264 - Any final judgment against the claimant on any claim prosecuted as provided in this chapter shall forever bar any further claim or demand against the United States arising out of the matters involved in the controversy.
Halaman 224 - Now that it has succeeded, it may seem very plain to anyone, that he could have done it as well. This is often the case with inventions of the greatest merit. It may be laid down as a general rule, though perhaps not an invariable one, that if a new combination and arrangement of known elements produce a new and beneficial result, never attained before, it is evidence of invention.
Halaman 223 - The combination, to be patentable, must produce a different force or effect, or result in the combined forces or processes, from that given by their separate parts. There must be a new result produced by their union : if not so, it is only an aggregation of separate elements.
Halaman 244 - ... he has described', but all other forms which embody his invention ; it being a familiar rule that to copy the principle or mode of operation described is an .infringement, although such copy should be totally...
Halaman 222 - To make a valid claim for a combination, it is not necessary that the several elementary parts of the combination should act simultaneously. If those elementary parts are so arranged that the successive action of each contributes to produce some one practical result, which result, when attained, is the product of the simultaneous or successive action of all the elementary parts, viewed as one entire whole, a valid claim for thus combining those elementary parts may be made.
Halaman 225 - ... or result. If the structures of the several references cannot be combined without the exercise of invention, even though the result is old, the claims should be allowed. If the structures of the references may be combined or substituted one for the other and the combined function or result is new, the claim should be allowed.