PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued. Schild, for an improvement in caisson-gates, Held to be valid and infringed, but injunction refused. * Belknap et al. v. Schild, 210. 69. SCHULTZ-PROCESS FOR TAWING HIDES AND SKINS-Nos. 291,784 AND 291,785— NOVELTY-VALIDITY-PROCESS-The claims of Letters Patent to Augustus Schultz, Nos. 291,784 and 291,785, for processes for tawing hides and skins, issued January 8, 1884, are valid and not anticipated by patents for processes of dyeing and printing on fabrics and treatment of wools. "The art of dyeing and of leather-making are wholly unallied, and therefore the doctrine of double use has no pertinency." Nor are the claims anticipated by a process for the treatment of gelatinous tissues of gelatin and gum and of compounds containing such substances, though such process be accompanied by a statement that it may be applied to tanning, when it appears that leather cannot be made by the process of the reference. *Tannage Patent Company v. Zahn, 119. 70. SCOTT-MANUFACTURE OF FLEXIBLE Paper-No. 216,108-VOID-Letters Patent No. 216,108, granted June 3, 1879, to T. Seymour Scott, for an improvement in the manufacture of flexible paper, are void for want of patentable novcity. American Fibre Chamois Company v. Buckskin Fibre Company et al., 357. 71. SEABURY-BREECH - LOADING CANNON-No. 425,584-CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM-Claim 1 of Letters Patent No. 525,584, issued April 15, 1890, to Samnel Seabury, for an improvement in breech-loading cannon, cannot, in view of the prior art, receive the broad construction contended for, but must be limited to the precise mechanism described. *Dashiell v. Grosvenor et al., 329. 72. SAME-SAME-SAME-INFRINGEMENT—It may be doubtful whether, in view of the Nordenfeldt patent, there is any novelty even in the exact combination described in this claim; but whether the Nordenfeldt device be an exact anticipation or not, the Dashiell device differs from the Seabury patent much more than the latter differs from the Nordenfeldt machine, and the claim is not infringed by Dashiell. *Id. 73. ShurtleFF—ÁTOMIZER-No. 447,064-INVALID-Claims 1 and 2 of Letters Patent No. 447,064, granted February 24, 1891, to Asahel M. Shurtleff, for an improvement in atomizers, reviewed in connection with the prior art, and Held not to cover a patentable invention. *Codman et al v. Amia, 291. 74. SPERRY-STAIR-PAD-No. 363,695-NON-INFRINGEMENT-Letters Patent No. 363,695, issued May 24, 1887, to Timothy S. Sperry, for a stair-pad, examined, construed, and Held not infringed. *Beale et al. v. Spate et al., 493. 75. STIERINGER-SAFETY CATCH FOR ELECTRIC-LIGHT CIRCUITS-No. 281,576INFRINGEMENT NOT PROVEN-Letters Patent No. 281,576, granted July 17, 1883, to Luther Stieringer, for an improvement in safety catches for electriclight circuits, not proven to have been infringed and bill dismissed. *Edison Electric Light Company v. Kaelber, 643. 76. TAFT-MACHINE FOR MAKING, REPAIRING, AND CLEANING ROADS-No. 331,920INVALID-Claims 4, 10, 11, and 13 of Letters Patent No. 331,920, granted December 8, 1885, to G. W. Taft, for a machine for making, repairing, and cleaning roads, construed in connection with the prior art and Held to be invalid. *American Road Machine Company et al. v. Pennock & Sharp Company, Limited, 556. 77. TAGLIABUE-SYRINGE-No. 325,132-ANTICIPATION-Letters Patent No. 325,132, granted August 25, 1885, to Charles J. Tagliabue, for a syringe in which the piston is made expansible without being removed by having the piston rod threaded and working in a jam nut which is held stationary for tightening the screw and expanding the piston by being drawn into and held by a socket in the cylinder head, is anticipated by a piston packing for pumps. *Tagliabue v. Sondermann, 314. PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued. 78. TAYLOR-FUEL-GAS MIXER-NO. 499, 151-INFRINGEMENT-Letters Patent No. 499,151, granted June 6, 1893, to William G. Taylor, for a fuel-gas mixer, examined, and Held infringed. *Taylor Burner Company, Limited, v. Diamond, 468. 79. VAN DEPOELE-SUSPENDED SWITCH AND TRAVELING CONTACT FOR ELECTRIC RAILWAYS-No. 424,695-INVENTION-The claims for the switching apparatus of Letters Patent No. 424,695, to Charles J. Van Depoele, for suspended switches and traveling contacts for electric railways, examined, and Held to involve invention, even upon the assumption that they cover, simply, suspending face downward the well-known form of railroad-switch. "ThomsonHouston Electric Company v. Elmira and Horseheads Railway Company, 122. 80. SAME-SAME-NON-INFRINGEMENT-Claims 15, 16, and 17 of Letters Patent to Charles J. Van Depoele for suspended switches and traveling contacts for electric railways, No. 424,695, issued April 1, 1890, examined and Held not infringed by a device which did not use the element "weight H." *Id. 81. SAME-SAME-INFRINGEMENT-Claims 2, 4, 9, 20, and 33 selected as leading ones of groups of duplicated claims in Letters Patent No. 424,695, to Charles J. Van Depoele, for suspended switches and traveling contacts for electric railways, issued April 1, 1890, Held infringed. *Id. 82. SAME-SAME-MULTIFARIOUS AND DUPLICATED CLAIMS-The claims of Letters Patent No. 424,695, to Charles J. Van Depoele, for suspended switches and traveling contacts for electric railways, Held to be needlessly multiplied. *Id. 83. SAME TRAVELING CONTACT FOR ELECTRIC RAILWAYS-No. 495,443—CONTRIBUTORY INfringement—Letters Patent No. 495,443, granted April 11, 1893, to Charles J. Van Depoele, for a traveling contact for electric railways, on a motion for preliminary injunction, Held to be infringed and motion granted. *Thomson-Houston Electric Company v. Kelsey Electric Railway Specialty Company, 474. 84. SAME-SAME-SAME-SAME-Claims 6, 7, 8, 12, and 16 of Letters Patent No. 495,443, granted April 11, 1893, to the administrators of Charles J. Van Depoele, for a traveling contact for electric railways, which cover the combination consisting generally of an electric railway having an overhead conductor and a car for said railway provided with a "trolley-stand" carrying a trailing arm which is pressed into engagement with the under side of the conductor, are not contributory infringed by defendant, who makes and sells only the "trolley-stand" of the combination. *Thomson-Houston Electric Company v. Kelsey Electric Railway Specialty Company et al., 508. 85. VAN RODEN-Design for a Badge-No. 20,748-INVALID-Patent No. 20,748, issued to George C. Van Roden on May 19, 1891, for a design for a badge, is invalid, as the patentee did not by industry or genius invent and produce a design which was new and original. *Caldwell & Co. v. Powell, 382. 86. SAME-SAME-SAME-NOT VOID-Design Patent No. 20,748, granted May 19, 1891, to George C. Van Roden, for a badge, Held not void on its face for want of invention. *Caldwell et al. v. Powell, 625. 87. WALL, JONES, AND BISHOP-PROCESS OF FUMIGATING TREES-NO. 445,342— The Wall, Jones, and Bishop Patent No. 445,342, for a process of fumigating trees, Held void on its face for want of patentable invention. (C. D., 1894, 457; 68 O. G., 1273; 61 Fed. Rep., 291, followed.) *Wall et al. v. Leck, 151. 88. WELKER-Fastening for Table-LeGS-No. 480,536-NOT INFRINGED-Claim 3 of Letters Patent No. 480,536, granted August 9, 1892, to Louis Welker, for fastening for table-legs, examined in view of the prior advance in the art and also in view of proceedings in the Patent Office, in which the applicant in effect disclaimed originality in a structure of the reference, and Held to be incapable of expansion to cover constructions which do not embody the elements of said claim. Welker v. Weller et al., 307. PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued. 89. SAME-TABle-Leg-Design Patent-No. 22,997-Void-Design Patent No. 22,997, granted January 2, 1894, to Louis Welker, for a table-leg, in view of the use of a table-leg of substantially the same design by the respondents prior to its invention by the complainant, Held to be void for want of patentable novelty. *Id. 90. WHITELY-ELASTIC-CORD EXERCISING APPARATUS-No. 418,257-ClaimsAGGREGATION-NOVELTY-INVENTION-Claim 1 of Letters Patent No. 418,257, vo A. A. Whitely, for elastic-cord exercising apparatus, issued December 31, 1889, Held not a mere aggregation of old devices and funetions, and that the apparatus having elastic cord was patentable over apparatus having non-elastic cords and weights and apparatus having springs or short elastic substitutes therefor. Whitely v. Fadner et al., 208. 91. SAME-SAME-SAME-INFRINGEMENT, RULE OF-Claim 1 of Letters Patent to A. A. Whitely, No. 418,257, for an elastic-cord exercising apparatus, issued December 31, 1889, Held infringed. "The function, utility, or result of defendant's apparatus is contained in that of complainant. An infringement is not avoided because the infringing device is better, more useful, and more acceptable to the public than that of the patent infringed, nor, on the other hand, because the infringing device by some colorable variation or expedient merely impairs or narrows the function and usefulness of the device infringed." Id. 92. WITTING-Soda-Water APPARATUS-No. 414,272-VALID-COMBINATION— Letters Patent No. 414,272, granted November 5, 1889, to Theodore I. Witting, for improvements in dispensing apparatus for soda water, examined, and the second claim thereof Held valid, in view of the state of the art, and to be for a legitimate combination. *American Soda Fountain Company v. Green 491. et al., PARTIES TO SUIT. See Infringement, 30, 31; Suits for Infringement, 1; Suits for Infringement Against the United States, 5. 1. DEFENDANTS-MISJOINDER-EMPLOYEE-All parties interested in the subjectmatter or issue of the suit must be made parties thereto; but employees receiving in return for their services fixed salaries are not such parties. Every agent, however, who performs acts of infringement and all officers who in the prosecution of business authorize said acts are responsible and should be enjoined. *Matthews & Willard Manufacturing Company v. Trenton Lamp Company et al., 316. 2. TECHNICAL PARTY-JUDGMENT—It is not necessary that a person should appear upon the record as a technical party to the proceedings in order to be bound by a judgment. If he be a substantial party, he will be bound by the finding in the case. *Drawbaugh v. Seymour, Commissioner of Patents, 527. PARTNERSHIP. See Interference, 23, 24, 25, 26. ASSIGNMENT-It is against the theory of the law of partnership that one partner should, without the consent of his copartners, carry on for his own exclusive use any business within the scope of the business of the partnership, and this rule of good faith is as applicable to a partnership of this kind as to any other. * Milton v. Kingsley, 420. PATENTABILITY. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 2; Demurrer, 2; Designs, 4; Interference, 3, 28; Public Appreciation as Evidence of Invention. MEANS OBJECT-The object of an invention is not patentable, the means may be. "Mechanism * pairs dissimultaneously" is an element of means. * Brush Electric Company v. Western Electric Company, 648. to separate PATENTED ARTICLES. See Contracts, 1. PATENTEE AND APPLICANT. See Interference, 9. PATENT OFFICE. See Practice in the Patent Office. PATENTS. See Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States; Applications; Construction of Specifications and Patents; Designs, 2; Infringement, 12; Particular Patents; Subsequent Patents; Title to Patent; Validity of Patents, 1. PATENTS AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF INVENTION. See Construction of PATENTS AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NON-INFRINGEMENT. See PATENTS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTE HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 10. PATENTS SURREPTITIOUSLY OBTAINED. See Interference, 8. PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION. See Interference, 40. PIONEER INVENTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 22. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS. See Appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals; Appeal UNCERTIFIED COURT RECORD-Official REPORT, TAKING Notice of-It is not necessary that a duly-certified transcript record of a case in a Federal court be filed in the Patent Office in order to render it competent for its tribunals to take notice of and be guided thereby. The officials of the Patent Office are not obliged to find their conclusions and judgments upon such evidence produced in such manner and form as is required by the rules of common law. They are not confined to merely technical evidence, but may resort to any source of intelligence upon which they can reasonably and safely act. The findings and judgment of a court as published in an official report are therefore competent to them, and were in this case ample ground for the rejection of claims. *Drawbaugh v. Seymour, Commissioner of Patents, 527. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. See Interference, 13, 15, 16, 29, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52. PRINTING THE RECORD. See Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 6. PRIOR CANADIAN PATENT. See Particular Patents, 52. PRIOR DECISIONS. PATENTS-EFFECT OF PRIOR DECISIONS-EX PARTE INJUNCTION-A decision granting a preliminary injunction, where no counsel appeared for defend PRIOR DECISIONS-Continued. ant, though some affidavits were submitted in his behalf, does not preclude the court in a subsequent suit against a different defendant from considering anew the question of the validity of the patent. *Covert v. Trarers Brothers Company, 321. PRIOR DEVICES. See Injunction, 4. PRIOR USE. See Abandoned Experiments; Particular Patents, 21. PRIORITY OF INVENTION. See Abandoned Experiments; Affidavits; Affidarits Under Rule 75; Anticipation; Interference, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 41, 42, 53; Interference Between Patents and Pending Applications; Particular Patents, 31; Reduction to Practice, 1, 4. 1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY—Foreign PatENT-Appert having patented the invention in a foreign country not only before Parker's completed invention but before Parker's first conception, he is held to be the prior inventor within the meaning of our statutes, whatever effect may be given to his foreign patent. Appert v. Parker, 5. 2. ANTICIPATION-WHAT CONSTITUTES-To constitute anticipation of a device it is enough that such a device has been in well-established use, whether it originated in design or by accident. *National Harrow Company v. Quick et al., 501. 3. DEFENSE OF PRIORITY-PRIOR INVENTION MUST HAVE BEEN COMPLETEWhere a plaintiff claims to be an original inventor and the defense is that the defendant is a prior inventor, thus conceding the invention of the plaintiff, but challenging his claim to priority of invention, it is imperative that the invention or discovery relied upon as a defense must have been complete and capable of producing the result sought to be accomplished, and this fact must be shown by the defendant. Progress, as such, no matter how near it may have approximated the end in view, cannot avail to defeat a patent. (Citing Coffin v. Ogden, 5 O. G., 270; 18 Wall., 120-124.) *Drawbaugh v. Seymour, Commissioner of Patents, 527. 4. FINDING BY Supreme Court Conclusive—It is not for a moment supposable that if a device produced in an incomplete state by the defense in a court suit was or had been practically operative it would not have been produced in evidence in an operative condition. In view of this and in view of a finding by the Supreme Court that the original instrument did not disclose the complete invention, and that all claims to the contrary are wholly unfounded in truth, such finding will be accepted as final and conclusive. *Id. PROCEEDINGS IN THE PATENT OFFICE. See Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 9, 11; Estoppel. PROCESS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 1, 12, 24, 25; Infringement, 33; Invention, 18, 19, 20, 23; Particular Patents, 2, 30, 36, 37, 38, 52, 69, 76, 87; Reduction to Practice, 1, 3. SUCCESSION OF ACTS-MIXTURE OF LIQUIDS-If two liquids mixed before their application to an object fail to produce a dyed effect, but when applied in succession produce such effect, the conclusion is that the former is an impracticable and unsatisfactory process. *Imperial Chemical Manufacturing Company v. Stein et al., 402. PROCESS AND PRODUCT. See Division of Application, 1; Invention, 19. 1. PUBLIC APPRECIATION EVIDENCE OF INVENTION-Extensive recognition by the public, large sales, and the fact that manufacturers have generally taken license under the patent, are potential facts largely influencing the judg |