Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

tion from the one that gives to the declarations of Carey the effect of a dedication of the improvement to the benefit of the public." By parity of reasoning, the most that the American Broiler Company can claim, upon the strength of the declarations made to its officers by Page in 1868, is that they hold a license under the patent since granted. (See also case of McClurg vs. Kingsland, 1 How., 208.)

3. But it is said that if these declarations of Page do not in themselves constitute an abandonment, yet his long delay to file an application after the completion of the invention, continued, too, for so long a time after he had personal knowledge that the utensil was being manufactured and had gone into public use, does constitute abandonment.

It must be borne in mind, however, that neither is the alleged public use shown to have existed two years prior to the application, nor has there been an independent discovery of the invention made by any other party. A public use for more than two years before the application would be a bar. So, also if during Page's delay another had originated the invention and given it to the world, Page would be held under the doctrine laid down in Monce vs. Adams, Pat. Off. Gaz., 1872, No. 1, to have forfeited his right. But such is not the fact. Page is the only real inventor who has yet come forward. It is to his inventive genius that the world is indebted for the knowledge of this useful improvement in an important culinary utensil. He had a right to permit its public use for two years before applying for a patent. Independently of this right, also, he had the right to delay indefinitely after the completion of his invention; but this latter right he could only exercise under the constant danger that another independent inventor might, during such delay and before the knowledge of the invention had passed to the public, enter upon and occupy the field. But this casualty did not occur in the present case. Page, therefore, cannot be prejudiced by his delay prior to the time when the public use of his invention began, for it is a well-established doctrine that delay, no matter how long continued, cannot impairan inventor's right to a patent unless, by reason of it, another inventor becomes the first to give the improvement to the world, (Monce vs. Adams ;) and, as before stated, he cannot be prejudiced by the public use, with his knowledge and consent, for less than two years.

4. The suggestion of counsel, that the granting of the Bowers patent on the 21st day of July, 1868, constitutes a constructive public use of the invention, so that no patent on the improvements therein shown can issue to another on an application filed more than two years subsequently to such date, may be dismissed with the remark that not only does there seem no warrant in law for such a theory, but it is contrary to the uniform practice of the Office in the matter of interferences. Rule 53 of the Revised Rules of Practice, as adopted in 1869, provides that

When an applicant requests to be put into an interference with a patent which was granted more than two years before his application, or with an applicant who has just been successful in an interference with another party, he will be required to file an affidavit setting forth the date and history of his invention.

This rule distinctly recognized what had previously been, and what still continues to be, a principle in the practice of the Office in the determination of interferences, viz., that the mere fact of a patent granted more than two years prior to a conflicting application is not fatal to the latter.

This disposes of the various questions involved in this case. The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief, so far as it holds, that the invention was in public use more than two years prior to Page's application, or that it has been abandoned, is reversed, and Page is adjudged entitled to a patent.

HORACE WOODMAN.

Extension.

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT FOR POWER AND HAND DRILL, GRANTED TO HORACE WOODMAN MAY 25, 1858.

(Decided May 24, 1872.)

Mode of estimating the value of an invention-Remainder of interest of an inventor in an extended term.

The possession by the inventor of a half interest in an extended term held to meet the requirements of the law on this point.

Upon the order of the Commissioner as prescribed in section 10 of the Patent Law, this case was referred to the Examiners-in-Chief, who, having heard the same, report as follows:

"The novelty and utility of the invention are established by the report of the examiner. Its importance and value are not questioned. The statements of affiants as to these points are undoubtedly greatly exaggerated. This results from the assumption of an improper basis for their calculations. They proceed upon the supposition that the sav ing to the country would be a certain sum if the million drills of this class should all be exchanged for the Woodman machine. This supposition does not furnish the data for a just estimate of value, for the superiority of Woodman's drill over others is manifest only under certain limitations. In all ordinary situations other drills will do as much and as good work as Woodman's machine, and there would therefore be no advantage gained under these circumstances by the substitution of the latter.

"But the machine is undoubtedly valuable in its adaptation to work in confined spaces. We are satisfied that its value on account of this adaptability is considerable-much greater than the entire sum received by Woodman for his invention.

"The inventor has received only $882.50 over and above expenditures

justly chargeable to the patent, which is a mere pittance compared with the value of the invention.

"He appears to have used diligent efforts to secure the introduction of his invention into public use. His necessities, however, compelled him from time to time to dispose of portions of his patent, until at length, in 1868, it passed entirely out of his possession.

"The examiner suggests that there is no evidence of the inventor's right to the patent, if extended, except his own statement. In this he is at fault. Woodman first sold a one-half interest in the patent to McKenney, who afterward transferred this interest to Hardy, whom the examiner suspects of owning the entire right for the extended term. An examination of the assignment from Woodman to McKenney shows that no right for an extended term was conveyed, even by implication, by this instrument. The other transfers have not been put on record. It is evident, however, that, whatever may have been their nature, Woodman has at least a half interest in the extended term. In accordance with precedents, well established, this must be held to meet the requirements of the law on this point.

"There is no opposition to the extension. The case is meritorious, and there is no reason to suppose that public interests will be prejudiced by the extension sought.

"There is one technical objection apparent from an inspection of the papers: The statement was not filed within thirty days from filing the application. The affidavit of Malcomson explains the delay, but there is no order admitting the statement. If this objection is not regarded as material, we find no objection to the extension asked, and recommend its grant.

"J. M. THACHER,

"S. H. HODGES,

“R. L. B. CLARKE,
"Examiners-in-Chief."

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

Upon the finding of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, the extension will be granted.

HENRY M. UNDERWOOD.

Reissue.

APPEAL FROM THE PRIMARY EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENT

APPLICATION OF PERSON NOYES FOR A REISSUE OF HIS

OF NOVEMBER 2, 1869, FOR IMPROVEMENT IN APPARATUS FOR MEASURING LIQUIDS.

(Decided May 29, 1872.)

Practice under Rule 44-Latitude of description in specification in application for reissue-Verbosity.

In original applications large latitude is allowed to an inventor in describing his invention. In applications for reissue a different rule prevails; the applicant should be held rigidly to the language adopted in his patent, unless for a good reason shown. In departing from the exact form of the original statement, the application should show good reason therefor.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The decision of the examiner is affirmed except as to his objections to the use of the word "sink" in place of the word "cover." The word "cover" does not properly designate the device as described in the original patent. On this point the decisior of the examiner must be reversed.

[ocr errors]

The applicant complains with some degree of bitterness that the examiner should object to his describing his invention in whatever language he may choose. In applications for patents the examiner should interfere as little as possible with the language chosen by the applicant in describing his invention. The largest latitude should be allowed; but in applications for reissues a different rule does and should prevail. The applicant should be held rigidly to the language adopted in his 'patent, except when a good reason appears for departing from such language. In objecting to the use of new terms, new descriptive matter, &c., the examiner is not bound to give reasons. It is enough that such terms and descriptive matter are new, and it devolves upon the applicant to show good reasons for their introduction, or they must be stricken out. A different rule would open a wide door to fraud. A patentee, if allowed to interpolate new uses, new descriptive matter, new names, &c., might, by frequent reissues, keep full pace with the advancement in the art to which his patent appertains, and might thus appropriate to his own use the improvements and inventions made by others. The rule should be: liberality with orignal applications; strict construction with applications for reissue.

The examiner might properly have objected to the verbosity and prolixity and alternative statements of applicant's specifications. Section 26 of the patent act requires that the specifications shall be in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms." It requires a long stretch of liberality to apply any of these adjectives except "full" to the specifications under consideration.

DANIEL J. LA DUC.-EX PARTE.

APPEAL FROM THE PRIMARY EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DANIEL J. LA DUC FOR LETTERS PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN SASH-FASTENERS.

(Decided May 29, 1872.)

Practice under Rule 44—Proper grounds for the appeal direct to the Commissioner-Proper condition of a claim before decision on the merits— Patentable combination.

Whether a combination is legitimate is a proper question to be determined under Rule 44.

A claim should be correct in form before decision on the merits by the primary examiner. It must be correct in form before appeal to the board of Examiners in-Chief on the merits.

A claim to the combination of two independent sash-fasteners attached to the opposite sides of a sash is to a mero duplication of devices, and is not patentable.

LEGGETT, Commissioner :

The application contains two claims. The examiner allows the first and rejects the second. The examiner, in his answer to the reasons for appeal, takes occasion to suggest that, having rejected the second claim on references, the appeal should have been to the board and not to the Commissioner in person. If the examiner had only rejected the claim on references, his suggestion would have been in accordance with the rules of practice, but he has done more. He first denies the validity of the combination, and then meets the parts with references. This being done, the applicant cannot go to the board until it is determined whether his combination is legitimate. His claim should be correct in form before an appeal is taken on its merits. The references cited by the examiner are not pertinent to the claim in its present form. No references should have been cited until the question of form was settled. The applicant is correct in his appeal.

The gist of the claim is the combination of two independent sashfasteners attached to the opposite sides of a sash. It is true that both operate in holding the sash, but each independently of the other. It is a mere duplication. Two lifting-jacks may be more advantageously used for a given purpose than oue, but one having been used and patented, no one would pretend that bringing in the aid of another would make a patentable combination. I think the examiner is clearly correct in denying the validity of the combination claimed, and on this point his decision is sustained. If the examiner has erred at all it was in allowing the first claim. In this he has gone to the utmost verge of liberality.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »