Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

and may be made in any manner that the rules of the Patent Office may prescribe.

(c) ACTION OF COMMISSIONER IN GRANTING REISSUE; How FAR REVIEWABLE IN COURT.-The action of the Commissioner in granting a reissue is reviewable only when, upon an inspection of the patents, it can be determined as a matter of law that the inventions described in the original and reissued patents are different;2 he otherwise has no authority to act or exceed his au

cision is as fatal to his original patent Cliff. (U. S.) 356; s. C., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. as to the reissue. Peck v. Collins, 103 90; s. C., i Pat. Off. Gaz. 91; Heald v. U. S. 660; s. C., 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1137. Rice, 104 U. S. 737; S. c., 21 Pat. Off.

Rights of Action. All rights of action Gaz. 1443; Ball v. Langles, 102 U. S. under the original patent expire with 128; Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul, the surrender and reissue. Jones v. 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 618; 8. c., 12 Barker, 11 Fed. Rep. 597; United States Pat. Off. Gaz. 351. Stamping Co. v. King, 7 Fed. Rep. Consequently when the original pat. 860; Mers v. Conover, 11 Pat. Off, ent is not in evidence, the court cannot Gaz. 4; Fry v. Quinlan, 13 Blatchf. declare the reissued patent void for (U. S.) 205; Reedy v. Scott, 23 Wall. being for a different invention. Doherty (U. S.) 352; S. C., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 463; v. Haynes, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. Burrell v. Hackley, 35 Fed. Rep. 833. 289; s. C., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 291; s. c., 6 Pat.

But a patentee may sue for an un- Off. Gaz. 118. lawful use of a machine bought before a All matters of fact connected with reissue. Bliss v. Brooklyn, 8 Blatchf. the surrender and reissue of the patent (U. S.) 533; s. C., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 596; are closed by the action of the ComCarr v. Rice, i Fish. Pat. Cas. 327. missioner in granting a reissue. Sey.

1. Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Weather mour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; bee, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 555; s. C., 3 Fish. Jordan v. Dobson, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. Pat. Cas. 87.

232; Stimpson v. West Chester R., And when the applicant has done all 4 How. (U. S.) 380; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. he can to make the surrender effective, Cas. 335; Colt v. Young, 2 Blatchf.(U. he has a right to consider his applica: S.) 471; Forbes v. Barstow Stove Co., tion properly before the Commissioner. 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 379; French v. Rogers, Commissioner v. Whitely, 4 Wall. (U. i Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; Thomas v. Shoe S.) 522.

Mach. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 2. Seymour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. 357; 8. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; ComCas. 555; Graham v. Mason, 5 Fish. bined Patents Can Co. v. Lloyd, il Pat. Cas. 1; s. C., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 88; Fed. Rep. 149; Selden v. Stockwell etc. La Baw v. Hawkins, i Bann. & Ard. Gas Burner Co., 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) Pat. Cas. 428; 8. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 724; 544; s. C., 9 Fed. Rep. 390; s. C., 20 Pat. Milligan etc. Glue Co. v. Upton, 97 U. Off. Gaz. 1377; Parham v. American S.3; Metropolitan Washing Mach. Ćo.v. Button etc. Mach. Co., 4 Fish. Pat. Providence Tool Co., 1 Holmes (U. S.) Cas. 468; Gage v. Herring, 23 Pat. Off. 161; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. Gaz, 2179; 8. C., 107 U. S. 640; Smith v. 89; S.C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 590; Nicholson Merriam, 6 Fed. Rep. 713; 8. C., 19 Pat. Pavement Co. v. Elizabeth, 6 Fish. Off. Gaz. 601; Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. Pat. Cas. 424; s. C., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 522; Rep. 684; Searls v. Worden, ii Fed. Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Rep. 501; s. C., 2: Pat. Off. Gaz. 1955; Powder Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 509; Seckels Herring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchs. (U. S.) v. Evans, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 203; Stephens 293; s. c., 12 Pat. Off. Gaz. 753; 3 Bann. v. Pritchard, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 417; & Ard. Pat. Cas. 55. Derring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) As a rule the question whether the 293; 8. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 55; reissue was made to cure a fault aris8. C., 12 Pat. Og. Gaz. 753; Tucker v. ing from accident or mistake, is de

C., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 40; s. C., 10 Asmus v. Alden, 27 Fed. Rep. 684.
Pat. Off. Gaz. 464; Chicago Fruit House And prima facie the Commissioner
v. Busch, 2 Biss. (U.S.) 472; s. C., 4 Fish. has discharged his duty faithfully and
Pat. Cas. 395; Carew v. Fabric Co., 3 correctly, and therefore the reissued

thority, 1

(d) WHAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN A REISSUE.-A reissue must be for the same invention as was contained in the original patent,

patent is for the same invention as the Taggart, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 139; Cahardt original patent, and that the surrender v. Austin, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Sickles was on account of an inadvertence or v. Falls Co., 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 508; mistake. Allen v. Blunt, 2 Woodb. & 6. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 202; Goodyear v. M. (U. S.) 121; s. c., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. Berry, 2 Bond (U. S.).189; s. C., 3 Fish. 530; Allen v. Blunt, 3 Story (U. S.) Pat. Cas. 439; American Wood Pa. 742; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 285; Phila- per Co. v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., delphia etc. R. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; American Wood S.) 448; s. C., 2 Robb Pat. Cas. 46; Smith Paper Co. v. Heft, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. v. Mercer, 5 Pa. L. J. 529; Hussey v. 316; Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 40 Bradley, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 134; s. C., 2 Fed. Rep. 667; Hubel v. Ďick, 24 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; Crompton v. Bel. Blatchf. (U. S.) 139; s. C., 28 Fed. Rep. knap Mills, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; 656; Combined Patents Can Co. 0. Birdsell v. McDonald, 1 Bann. & Ard. Lloyd, ii Fed. Rep. 149; Flower v. Pat. Cas. 165; s.c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 682; Rayner, 19 Pat. Off. Gaz. 425; CumWoodworth V. Edwards, 3 Woodb. & mings v. Newton, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. M. (U. S.) 120; Hussey v. McCormick, Cas. 159; s. C., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 720; ! i Biss. (U. S.) 300; s. c., 1 Fish. Pat. Neacy v. Allis, 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1621; Cas. 509; Hussey v. Bradley, 5 Blatchf. M'Kay v. Stowe, 17 Fed. Rep. 517; (U. S.) 134; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 362; United States etc. Felting Co. v. Haven, Morris v. Royer, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 176; 3 Dill. (U.S.) 131; s.c., 2 Bann. & Ard. Middletown Co. v. Juda, 3 Fish. Pat. Pat. Cas. 164; s.c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz. 253; Cas. 141; Goodyear v. Berry, 3 Fish. Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Pat. Cas. 439, s. c., 2 Bond (V. Š.) 189; Fish. Pat. Cas. 499; Reed v. Chase, 25 Knight v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., I Fed. Rep. 94; Haines v. Peck, 26 Fed. Taney (U. S.) 106; S. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Rep. 625; Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. Cas. 1; Manufacturing Co. v. Du Brul, 563; National Pump Cylinder Co. v. 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 618; s. C., 12 Simmons Hardware Co., 18 Fed. Rep. Pat. Off. Gaz. 351.

324; Globe Nail Co. v. United States And many other cases where the etc. Nail Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 819; Philaprinciple is thoroughly established. delphia Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Rouss, 39 And that it has not been extended be- Fed. Rep. 273. yond the original invention. Bantz v. The original patent consisted of two Elsar, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 351; features: First, in the collars of 8. C., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 117.

parchment-paper or paper prepared 1. Giant Powder Co. v. California with animal sizing. Second, in coating etc. Powder Works, 4 Fed. Rep. 720; one or both sides of the collar with a 8. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1339; Flower v. thin varnish of bleached shellac to give Rayner, 5 Fed. Rep. 793; s. C., 19 Pat. smoothness, strength and stiffness, and Off. Gaz. 425.

to repel moisture; the reissue describes The action of the Commissioner is a paper, other than as above described, now conclusive as to the existence of and did not require the collars to be fraud in making the application, Giant coated with shellac. Held, this was a Powder Co. v. Safety etc. Powder Co., different invention. Union Paper Col. 10 Sawy. (U.S.) 23; s. C., 19 Fed. Rep. lar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. (U.S.) 509; s. c., 27 Pat. Off. Gaz. 99; Sey. 530; S. c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz. 919. mour v. Osborne, ii Wall. (U. S.) "The original patent for one of its 516; La Baw v. Hawkins, 2 Bann. & elements had the use of a hot, fat liq. Ard. Pat. Cas. 428; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. uid; the reissue included both hot and 724; Johnsen v. Beard, 2 Bann. & Ard. cold. Held, not the same invention. Pat. Cas. 50; s. C., 8 Pat. Off. Gaz. 435; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; S.C., II Schullinger v. Cranford, 4 Mackey (U. Pat. Off. Gaz, 151. S.) 450; Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wall. The original patent had the canceling (U. S.) 181; s. c., 6 Pat. Off. Gaz. 392. device in a letter-canceling and post

2. U. S. Rev. Stats., $ 4916; Sey- marking contrivance, restricted to a mour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; tube containing a piece of wood or Sickels v. Evans, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 203; other material; the reissue claimed a 8. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas, 417; Battin v. stamp without the peculiar mechan.

and cannot contain new or extraneous matter;? although, without

Tree

isms. James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. Rep. 43; Vacuum Oil Co. v. Buffalo 356.

Lubricating Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 850; The reasonable inference in the orig. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 20 Fed. inal specification of Green's patent was Rep. 903; Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. that an air-tight connection was made 94; Columbia Rubber Co. v. Klous, 33 between the tube and the earth. Held, Fed. Rep. 275; Andrews v. Hovey, 26 that a description of means of making Pat. Off. Gaz, 1011; Schillinger vi such air-tight connection did not de- Cranford, 4 Mackey (U. S.) 450; s. C., scribe a different invention. Eames v. 37 Pat. Off. Gaz. 49; Farmers' etc. Mfg. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40.

Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co., 23 The courts will treat a reissue favor. Fed. Rep.42; s. C., 30 Pat. Off. Gaz. 661; ably, where the patentee is clearly Hayes v. Seton, 20 Blatchf. (U.S.) 484; seeking, by apt words, to cover his in- s. c., 12 Fed. Rep. 120; Streit v. Lau. vention, and nothing more. Crandal ter, 11 Fed. Rep. 309; Hart v. Thayer, v. Parker Carriage Goods Co., 20 Fed. 20 Blatchf. (U.S.) 315; s. C., 21 Pat. Off. Rep. 851.

Gaz. 7914 s. c., 10 Fed. Rep. 746; Curtis Parol testimony of what the inven- v. Branch, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. tion actually consisted of cannot be 189; s. C., 15 Pat. Off. Gaz. 919; Kero. used to correct a defect for the purpose sene Lamp Heater Co. v. Littell, 3 of obtaining a reissue. Union Paper Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 312; 8. C., 13 Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 23 Wall. (U. Pat. Off. Gaz, 1009; Russell v. Dodge, 93 S.) 530; s.c., 7 Pat. Off. Gaz.g19; Averill U. S. 460; Stevens v. Pritchard, 4 Cliff. Paint Co. v. National Paint Co., 22 (U. S.) 417; s. C., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Pat. Off. Gaz. 585; Farr v. Webb, 10 Cas.390; Cahart v. Austin, 2 Cliff.(U.S.) Blatchf.(U.S.) 96; s.c.; 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 528; s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 468; Knight 593; s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 568; Sarven V. Baltimore etc. R. Co., I Tanev (U. v. Hall, 9 Blatchf. (U, S.) 524.

S.) 106; s. C., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Ďyson Nor will a mere inadvertence to v. Danforth, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 133; insert a portion of the invention in the Steam Gage etc. Co. v. Miller, 11 Fed. original specification, be considered a Rep. 718; New York Bung etc. Co. v. sufficient excuse. Atwater Mfg. Co. v, Hoffman, 20 Blatchf. (U. S.) 3; Wicks Beecher Mfg. Co., 8 Fed. Rep. 608. v. Stephens, 2 Woods (U. S.) 310; s. C.,

But apparently a proof of what was 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 318; United in a lost or dilapidated model may be States Felting Co. 7'. Haven, 9 Pat. Off. received. Meyer v. Goodyear etc. Gaz. 253; Swaine etc. Mfg. Co. v. Glove Mfg. Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz, 681; Ladd, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 488; Aultman v. Holley, 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) S. C., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 153; Matthews v. 317; s. c., 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 534; s. C., 5 Iron Clad Mfg.Co., 124 U.S. 349; s. C., Pat. Off. Gaz. 3; Royer v. Russell, 7 Fed. 42 Pat. Off. Gaz. 827; Matthews v. BosRep. 696; 8. C., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1819. ton Mach. Co., 105 U. S. 54; s. c., 21

A liberal construction of the original Pat. Off. Gaz. 1349; Window Screen patent will be made to avoid declaring Co. v. Boughton, i Bann. & Ard. Pat. a reissue void for being not for the same Cas. 327; Ives v. Sargent, 119 U. S. invention as the original. Milligan 652; s.c., 38 Pat. Off. Gaz.781; Gong etc. Glue Co. v. Upton, 97 U. S. 3; S. C., 6 Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Pat. Off. Gaz. 837; Yale Lock Mfg. Cas. 211; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Co., Co. v. New Haven Sav. Bank, 32 Fed. 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 557; s. c., 16 Rep. 167.

Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; Vogler v. Semple, 7 1. Giant Powder Co. v. California Biss. (U. S.) 382; s. c., 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. etc. Powder Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 720; s. C., 923; Doane etc. Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 18 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1339; Flower v. Ray- 15 Fed. Rep. 459; s. C., 24 Pat. Off. Gaz. ner, 5 Fed. Rep. 793; s. C., 19 Pat. Off. 302; American etc. Drill Co, v. SulliGaz. 425; Wells v. Gill, 6 Fish. Pat. van Mach. Co., 22 Batchf. (U. S.) Cas. 89; s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Gaz. 590; 298; S. C., 21 Fed. Rep. 74; s. c., 28 Pat. Heald v. Rice, 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1447; Off. Gaz, 8111; Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Fay v. Preble, 14 Fed. Rep.652; Aver- Clock Co., 123 U. S. 89; Cammeyer v. ill Chemical Paint Co. v. National etc. Newton, 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 159; Paint Co., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 585; S. C., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 720; Campbell v. Schultz v. Ostrander, 27 Fed. Rep. 245; James, 104 U. S. 356; s. C., 2 Pat. Off. Parker etc. Co.v. Yale Lock Co., 18 Fed. Gaz. 337; Gosling v. Roberts, 106 U.S.

considering other doctrines limiting the practical extent of this, 1 the invention may be gathered from anything contained in the specifications, drawing or model, and expressed in different

39; s. C., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1785; Moffitt Gaz. 181; Adjustable Window Screen v. Rogers, 106 U. S. 423; s. c., 23 Pat. Co. v. Boughton, 1 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Off. Gaz. 270; Wing v. Anthony, 106 Cas. 327; Flint v. Roberts, 4 Bann. & U. S. 142; Warring v. Johnson, 19 Ard. Pat. Cas. 168; Atwood v. Port. Blatchf. (U.S.) 38; s. C., 6 Fed. Rep. 500. land Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 283; S. c., 5

Hopkins etc. Mfg.Co. v. Corbin, 103 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 533; Holmes U.S. 786, Ball v. Langles, 102 U.S. 128; etc. Tel. Co. v. Domestic Teleph. Co., Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U.S. 230; Jones 42 Fed. Rep. 220; Dederick v. Cassell, v. McMurray, 2 Hughes (U.S.) 527; 9 Fed. Rep. 306; Hendy v. Golden S. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 130; State etc. Iron Works, 8 Sawyer (U. Atwater Mfg. Co. v. Beecher Mfg. Co., S.) 468; s. C., 17 Fed. Rep. 515; Bussey 8 Fed. Rep. 608.

v. Wagner, 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. The later rulings of the supreme 229; s. C., 9 Pat. Of. Gaz. 300; Whit. court as to what may be included in a tlesey v. Ames, 9 Biss. (U.S.) 225; 8. C., reissued patent, seem to rule that it 13 Fed. Rep. 893; s. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. must appear affirmatively from the com- Pat. Cas. 96; s. C., 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 357; parison of the two patents, that the re- Calkins v. Bertrand, 6 Biss. (U. S.) issue embraces no invention which was 494; s. C., 2 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. not intended to be secured by the orig. 215; s. c., 9 Pat. Off. Gaz, 795; Meyer inal patent. Flower v. Detroit, 127 Ú. v. Goodyear etc. Glove Mfg. Co., 11 S. 563; s. C., 43 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1348; Fed. Rep. 891; s. C., 22 Pat. Off. Gaz, Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 U. S. 217; s. c., 681; Reissner v. Anness, 3 Bann. & Ard. 43 Pat. Off. Gaz. 509; Parker etc. Co. Pat. Cas. 176; 6. C., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz, v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U. S. 57; s. C., 870; Barker v. Shoots, 18 Fed. Rep. 41 Pat. Of. Gaz. 81.

647; Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland New Matter-Definition of.-New mat. Target Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 922; Eachus ter is anything not embraced in, or v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429. necessarily flowing from the invention So where the drawings and descripas originally described, which affects tion show that the matter embraced in the substance of the invention and the reissue was not in the original might have been the subject of a new patent, the reissue is invalid. Covell patent. Dederick v. Cassell, 9 Fed. v. Pratt, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 126; s. C., Rep. 306; s. c., 20 Pat. Off. Gaz. 1233; 18 Pat. Off. Gaz. 301; s. c., 5 Bann. & Christman v. Rumsey, 17 Blatchf. (U. Ard. Pat. Cas. 380; s.c., 2 Fed. Rep.359. S.) 148; s. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. What was suggested or indicated in 506, s.c., 17 Pat. Off. Gaz. 903; Thomas the original specification, drawing or v. Shoe Mach. Co., 3 Bann. & Ard. Patent Office model, is not to be conPat. Cas. 138; 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; sidered as a part of the invention inPurviance v. Yerrington, 2 Bann. & tended to have been covered by the Ard. Pat. Cas. 237; s. C., 9 Pat. Off. original patent, unless it can be seen Gaz. 689; Siebert etc. Oil Cup Co. v. from a comparison of the two patents, Harper etc. Lubricator Co., 4 Fed. that the invention which the original Rep. 328.

patent was intended to cover, embraced 1. See cases cited in subsequent the things thus suggested or indicated notes.

in the original specification, etc., and 2. Sickles v. Evans, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) unless the original specification in203; s. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 417; Sey- dicated that those things were embraced mour v. Osborne, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 555; in the invention intended to have been Cabart v. Austin, 2 Cliff. (U. S.) 543; secured in the original patent. Parker s. c., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 543; Knight v. etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 Y. S. Baltimore etc. R. Co., i Taney (U. S.) 87. 106; s. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1; Hoff. Model.–Under this ruling the office heins v. Brandt, 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 218; model is not sufficient. Flower v. DeSarven v. Hall, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 524; troit, 127 U.S. 562; s.c., 43 Pat. Off. Gaz, S. C., 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 415; s. c., I Pat. 1348; Parker etc. Co. v. Yale Clock Off. Ğaz. 437, Kirby v. Dodge etc. Mfg. Co., 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 485; s. C., 18 Co., 10 Blatchf. (Ú. S.) 307; 8. c., 6 Fed. Rep. 45; probably overruling Fish. Pat. Cas. 307; 8. C., 3 Pat. Off. Hendy v. Golden State etc. Iron Works,

terms or language from that which is used in the original patent.1

8 Sawy. (U. S.) 468; s. c., 17 Fed. Rep. Gormully etc. Mfg.Co., 34 Fed. Rep.896; 515; Reissner vi Anness, 3 Bann. & Walker v. Terre Haute, 44 Fed. Rép. Ard. Pat. Cas. 176; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. 70; Hubel v. Waldie, 35 Fed. Rep. 414; Gaz, 870; Meyer v. Goodyear etc. Glove Turner etc. Mfg. Co. v. Dover StampMfg. Co., 20° Blatchf. (U.S.) 91; s. C., ing Co., 11 U.S. 319; National Spring 11 Fed. Rep. 891.

Co. v. Union etc. Spring Co., 12 Blatchf. Drawing. --But if the invention at. (U. S.) So; Black v. Thorne, 12 Blatchf. tempted to be covered appears in the (U. S.) 20. drawing, it is sufficient. Meyer v. Illustrations of Changes Which May or Goodyear etc. Glove Mfg. Co., 20 May Not be Made in the Specifications.Blatchf. (U. S.) 91; s. c., 22 Pat. Off. From an imperfect description of one Gaz. 681; s. c., 11 Fed. Rep. 891. kind of machine to which an invention

1. French v. Rogers, i Fish. Pat. Cas. may be applied to another kind of ma. 133; Tarr v. Folsom, i Holmes (U. S.) chine. Aultman v. Holley, 5 Pat. Off. 313; s. C., I Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 24; Gaz. 3; s. c., 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 317; S. C., 5 Pat. Off. Gaz. 92; · Wells v. De Florez v. Raynolds, 14 Blatchf. (U. Jaques, i Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 60; S.) 505; s. C., 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. Wonson v. Peterson, 3 Bann. & Ard. 292; Patten v. Stewart, 7 Fed. Rep. 215; Pat. Cas. 249; Carew v. Boston etc. Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. Fabric Co., i Holmes (U. S.) 45; s. c., 148; St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quimby, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 90; s. c., i Pat. Off. 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 192; s. c., 16 Gaz. 91; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 135. Fish. Pat. Cas. 536; Blake v. Stafford, An inserted assertion that the inven6 Blatchf. (U. S.) 195; Tucker v. Tucker tion belongs to a certain class and acMfg. Co., 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 397; S. C., 3 complishes a certain result, does not Fish. Pat. Cas. 294; Morse v. Bain, 9 invalidate. Reed v. Chase, 25 Fed. Rep. West. L. J. 106; Stevens v. Pritchard, 94; Patten v. Stewart, 18 Blatchf. (U. 10 Pat. Off. Gaz. 505: Lorrilard Co. v. S.) 561; s. C., 7 Fed. Rep. 215; s. C., 19 McDowell, 11 Pat. Off. Gaz. 640; Bridge Pat. Off. Gaz. 997; Doane etc. Mfg.Co.ú. v. Brown, í Holmes (U. S.) 53; Searls Smith, 15 Fed. Rep. 459; s. c., 24 Pat. v. Van Nest, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. Off. Gaz. 302; Schillinger v. Gunther, 121; s. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 772; Atlantic 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 303; s. C., 3 Bann. & etc. Powder Co. v. Rand, 16 Blatchf. Ard. Pat. Cas. 491; s. c., 14 Pat. Off. (U. S.) 250; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. Gaz. 87; Gaz. 713 6. C., 4 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 263; St. Changes Allowable. Changes of form Louis Stamping Co. v. Quimby, 4 Bann. where form is not essential. Putnam & Ard. Pat. Cas. 192; s. c., 16 Pat. Off. v. Hutchinson, 12 Fed. Rep. 131; Abbe Gaz, 135; Thomas v. Shoe Mach. Co., v. Clark, 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 211; 3 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 557; s. C., 16 8. c., 13 Pat. Off. Gaz. 274; Decker v. Pat. Off. Gaz. 541; Christman v. Rum- Grote, 10 Blatchf. (U. S.) 331; 8. C., 6 sey, 17 Blatchf. (U. S.) 148; S. C., 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424; s. c., 3 Pat. Off. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 506; 8. c., 17 Gaz. 522. Pat. Off. Gaz. 903; Stephenson v. Sec- Otherwise where the change, though ond Ave. R. Co., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. slight, is a substantial one producing a Cas. 116; s. c., i Fed. Rep. 416; Tyler new result. Kirby v. Dodge etc. Mfg. v. Welch, 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 209; s. C., Co., 10 Blatchf. (Ú.S.) 307; S. c.,6 Fish. 3 Fed. Rep. 636; Wisner v. Dodds, 5 Pat. Cas. 156; s. C., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 181. Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 447; s. C., 2 Fed. Changing the relative importance of Rep. 781; McCreary v. Pennsylvania various matters. Broadnax v. Central Canal Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 367; Marks v. Stock Yard etc. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 214; Fox, 18 Blatchf. (U.S.) 502; s. c., 6 Fed. 6. C., 5 Bann. & Ard. Pat. Cas. 609; Rep. 727; Loercher v. Crandal, 11 Fed. Poppenhausen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. (Ú. Rep. 872; s. C., 21 Pat. Off. Gaz. 863; S.) 493; s. C., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 181; Strobridge v. Landers, 11 Fed. Rep. Robertson v. Secombe Mfg. Co., 10 880; s. c. 21 Pat. Off. Gaz, 1027; Searls v. Blatchf. (U. S.) 481; s. C., 6 Fish. Pat. Worden, 11 Fed. Rep. 501; S. C., 21 Pat. Cas. 268, s. C., 3 Pat. Off. Gaz. 412; Off. Gaz. 1955; Putnam v. Keystone American etc. Pavement Co. v. ElizaBottle Stopper Co., 38 Fed. Rep. 234; beth, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 424; s. C., 3 Pat. Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. v. Water. Off. Gaz. 522. bury, 39 Fed. Rep. 389; Pope Mfg.Co. v. Or the drawing in immaterial par.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »