has held that an improvement or invention, such as the Jamieson invention was not protectable under the existing patent law." "As pointed out before, it is true that in this class of inventions the user-i. e. the plant operator-is the chief beneficiary of the advantages of the invention. But the contractor or engineer who erects the device is also the gainer from the construction of the device. And the manufacturer of the apparatus employed also gains by the manufacture and sale of such apparatus. And the public, not least to be considered, benefits most of all." No one needs to use the patented invention. If one deliberately copies the advantageous arrangement devised and perfected by another, he should expect to make fair payment therefor. Mr. Dienner proposes that the utility insert a clause in its contract with manufacturers as follows: This material is bought for installation and use in erecting a generating station (or substation, or transmission system )known as the the construction of which is shown and described in the plans and specification prepared by and dated engineers, a copy of which is on file at open to your the office of the purchaser at inspection. The seller in supplying material on this order hereby agrees to save the purchaser harmless from all claims for patent infringement, primary or contributory, based upon the use of the material so supplied in the construction of such________ according to the plans and specifications referred to above." The real burden of the investigation of the patent situation should be put upon the manufacturer, because the manufacturer can distribute the cost of the investigation as overhead on a large number of installations by settling at a single investigation the question for all installations of like character. "International Patents." Science, Dec. 21, 1923, p. 510. A questionnaire was sent out by the International Chamber of Commerce to a number of societies interest ed in trade-marks, patents and designs with the object of ascertaining the direction in which modifications and amendments were desirable, from the British point of view, in the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed at Washington on June 2, 1911. A meeting of the representatives of some twenty of the societies consulted was held at Lever House, Blackfriars, on November 23. It was recommended: 1. a clause should be inserted in the convention abolishing revocation of patent rights either for non-working or for abuse of monopoly, but permitting each country at its discretion to grant compulsory licenses in such cases; 2. provision should be made for establishing in all convention countries a uniform period of duration for patents, and renewal fees should be paid at agreed intervals of time and be based on a sliding scale system of progressively increasing payments; 3. there should be uniform provisions governing the use of an invention on vessels sailing under the flag of one of the states which has adhered to the convention; 4. there should be provision for registration in a public register kept by the competent administration of each country of all assignments and licenses affecting the legal proprietorship of patent rights; 5. steps should be taken to secure a greater degree of uniformity in the regulations at present in force in the various countries with respect to the procedure to be followed on applications for the grant of letters patent. It was further agreed that it was neither desirable nor practicable to insist upon the institution in all convention countries of a system of preliminary search of patent applications, but it was desirable that any party interested should have the right, prior to the grant of any patent, to institute opposition proceedings based on all prior publications or public users of the invention. CURRENT COURT DECISIONS. Note. The following committee will have charge of this department during the ensuing year. PEELE CO. vs. MORRISON & SKINNER CO., C. C. A. 1. Lowel, Dist. J. 293 Fed. 370. Rashkin patent No. 871,735, claims 1 and 5 for a door for freight elevators, held void for lack of invention. Invention.-Door for freight elevators.-Mere mechanical expedient. The patent sued upon relates to counterbalanced freight elevator doors, consisting of two sections vertically slidable in opposite directions. When the elevator stops at a floor the lower door section moves down until its upper edge is substantially level with the floor and elevator platform. The doors are guided in their movement by vertical tracks close to the wall within the elevator shaft. The elevator car is ordinarily spaced away from the wall of the shaft leaving a gap between the edge of the door sill and the elevator floor. When trucks are passed over the gap material may be jarred off which clogs the gap and interferes with the operation of the doors. To overcome these obstacles, Rashkin provides the top of the lower door section with a metal bar of sufficient width to bridge the gap. He extends the ends. of the bar to engage stops on the door guiding rails so that the bar, when the door is lowered, is flush with the floor and sustains the entire load of the trucks that pass to and from the elevator. Held, to be a mere mechanical adaptation of obvious means to obvious needs. Not every common-sense adaptation of mechanical means to an end is invention. Although broadly this may be true, Rashkin, by the addition of a single element accomplished three functions, namely: bridged the gap between the floor and elevator platform, stopped the door in the right place flush with the floor and relieved the door from any strain from loads passing over it. If there is any doubt of patentability it should have been resolved in his favor. The tendency now is, apparently, to raise the standard of invention. -A. B. BACKSTAY MACHINE & LEATHER CO. v. ZENITE METAL CO. C. C. A.-7. Alschuler Cir. J. 293 Fed. 23. Schemmel design patent No. 51,804 for Molding or Welt, held anticipated. Schemmel patent No. 1,226,600 for Finishing Welt, claims 3 and 4 held invalid, claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 held valid and infringed. 3 5 D' R. C. SCHEMMEL. 1,226,600. ALVIN B. FELT, 221,801 Finishing welts Schemmel Device-Prior art. The mechanical patent is for a finishing welt for use in trim ming automobile tops and bodies, furniture, and the like, and the other patent is a design for the same. The welt, as shown in the figure, comprises a body made up of several layers of leather or other suitable material stiched together at 4, and beads formed of cords 3 and cordcoverings 2, the latter being preferably parts of the body 1. In attaching the welt to an object, the beads are spread apart and the tacks or other attaching means driven thru the body of the welt and into said object. Upon the release of the beads, they will spring back into their normal position and cover the attaching means. The device principally relied upon to show anticipation was that disclosed in the Felt patent No. 221,801 and shown in the accompanying sketch. The Felt patent is for a cording attachment for sewing machines and is used to form and insert corded welts into a seam which joins two fabrics. The fabric DD' into the connecting seam of which the cords FE are inserted as formed by Felt's attachment, involved a single operation, whereby the sewing machine forms the welts and sews them into the seam joining D and D'. The Felt product was not intended to be attached to other articles. The prior art further included several welts having ornamental beads none of which were used to conceal the fastening means, and also welts having flaps for covering the fastening means, said flaps being held in place by adhesive or tacks having ornamental heads. Patentability over prior art. The court found that Felt had no problem of forming beaded strips to be thereafter attached to other articles, and that Felt's strip would be illy adapted for this purpose. The court further found that the prior art failed to show parallel beading adapted to be displaced for the insertion of the tacks and having the tendency to return to close position to conceal said tacks. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 which were drawn to the structure of the welt itself, were held valid and infringed. This part of the decision is contrary to that handed down in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the First circuit in Backstay Machine Co. v. Hamilton, 262 |