latest and probably greatest physical attainment, this modern Galileo is dying in poverty and humiliation, a victim of the relentless persecution of the aircraft conspiracy." In the course of a twenty page article, documented and illustrated with photographs of flights and patent applications, Mr. Martin attempts to prove that the real essentials of modern aviation were first described by Mr. Herring, and not the Wright Brothers; that his rejected patent application antedated that of the Wrights and others by many years; and that the Patent Office was and is in error in not granting the original application. Whether you believe the statements or not, the article makes interesting reading.

A COMMUNICATION.

UNION METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY

CHICAGO

November 21, 1924.

Journal of the Patent Office Society,

Gentlemen:

I note in your issue of February, 1924, page 281, while discussing the Mt. Vernon Car Manufacturing Company vs. The Pressed Steel Manufacturing Company suit, you say, "Sisson patent No. 1,254,860, claim 6-held void for lack of invention".

This is inconsistent with your statement on page 284 where while discussing the same claim you stated, "held valid and infringed".

The fact is that not only claim 6 but claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same patent were held valid and infringed. We are enclosing copy of the complete decision for your information.

I do not know whether you would care to make a correction, but I presume you would like to have your readers correct any error which appears in your Journal.

The writer happens to be the inventor and was very much interested in this suit.

VES/MAP
Encl.

Yours very truly,

V. E. SISSON,

Patent Counsel.

The error pointed out by the foregoing letter is regretted. As indicated in Mr. Sisson's letter, it occurred only in a head note, the facts being correctly stated in the discussion of the patent. The reported decision did not mention that claims other than 6 were involved, but the decree, shows that claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 were also sustained. E. S .and M. C. R.

CURRENT COURT DECISIONS.

THE STANDARD PARTS CO. v. PECK (325 O. G., 701; 264 U. S., 52).

Peck, who was known to be of an inventive turn of mind, entered into a written contract with the HessPontiac Spring and Axle Company

to devote his time to the development of a process and machinery for the production of the front spring now used on the product of the Ford Motor Company.

His work under this contract resulted in his making an invention which related to the production of the springs specified in the contract. He patented the invention. The Supreme Court held that the patent belonged to his employer.

Comment. The decision was in accord with the principle first announced by the Supreme Court in Solomons v. United States, 137 U. S., 542 as follows:

If one is employed to devise or perfect an instrument, or a means for accomplishing a prescribed re

sult, he cannot after successfully accomplishing the work for which he was employed, plead title thereto as against his employer. That which he has been employed and paid to accomplish becomes, when accomplished, the property of the employer. Whatever right as an individual he may have had in and to his inventive powers, and that which they are able to accomplish, he has, sold in advance to his employer.

This was quoted or given in substance in the later cases, McAleer v. United States (150 U. S., 424) and Gill v. United States (160 U. S., 426). The Peck case, however, is the first which was ruled by this principle, although it was stated in effect in the Gill case that the decision in Solomons case could have been put on the ground of ownership of the invention by the United States. The Peck case and the Solomons case are the only two cases to which the Supreme Court has applied the principle.

In Solomons case Clarke was the chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and one of the specific duties to which he was assigned was that of devising a revenue stamp. He devised the stamp and obtained a patent on it. The case came up by way of a suit for infringement brought by Clarke's assignee.

The situation in Hapgood v. Hewitt (119 U. S., 226) presented some features which had some resemblance to features presented in the Solomons and Peck cases. Hapgood & Company, a corporation, had as an official position that of superintendent the duties of which "were to have general charge of the manufacturing department" "and to devise and get up such new devices, arrangements, and improvements in the ploughs manufactured as should adapt them to the market, and as should be needed from time to time to suit the wants of customers." In 1873 Hewitt was employed to get up, improve, and perfect ploughs and other goods made by his employer. In 1874 he was made superintendent of the manufacturing department and he was to devise improve

ments in ploughs and get up and perfect ploughs adapted to the general trade of the corporation. He thus made an invention in ploughs. Later he left the company and procured a patent. He was sued by the trustee of the Hapgood Company and by a new company to which the assets of the Hapgood Company had been assigned, to transfer his patent. The suit was dismissed, one of the reasons being, "(1) that

Hewitt was not expressly required by his contract, to exercise his inventive faculties for the benefit of his employer and there was nothing in the bill from which it could be fairly inferred that he was required or expected to do so.

After the Hapgood-Hewitt case came Solomons case in which the Court laid down the principle on which the Peck case was later decided. Next after Solomons case came the case of Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. (149 U. S., 315). In its decision the Court at one point said:

But a manufacturing corporation, which has employed a skilled workman, for a stated compensation, to take charge of its works, and to devote his time and services to devising and making improvements in articles there manufactured, is not entitled to a conveyance of patent obtained for inventions made by him while so employed, in the absence of express agreement to that effect. Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S., 226.

L. W. W.

OUTLOOK CO. v. MALEO PRODUCTS CORP. (District Court. E. D. New York. May 21, 1924) 299 Fed. 997.

Plaintiff sued on two patents, Beitman, No. 993,816, for a wind shield cleaner and Williams, No. 1,422,158, for means for connecting elements.

The defendant interposed the defenses of invalidity and non-infringement of both patents. An examination of the prior art consisting of numerous patents revealed that the elements of the claims of the Beitman patent were all old but that they were not combined in the same way so as to produce the novel result of Beitman, namely that the device could be removably fastened on the window frame and longitudinally shifted, and also removably adjusted at a point so that it could be swung about the point to clear or wipe only that part of the window. A structural difference was the unitary U-shaped rod mounted with an arm on each side of the glass so that its resilience tended to press the wiper mounted on the outside arm against the glass. Claims 1 and 6, setting forth the above differences, were held valid. Restricting the claims to their meaning as shown and set forth above, it was found that the alleged infringing structure lacked essential elements of the claimed combination, namely the longitudinal shifting of the cleaner and the holding of the outer arm in contact with the glass by a spring acting on a lever instead of by the resilience of the arms themselves. Therefore there was no infringement.

The Williams patent No. 1,422,158 entitled "Means for Connecting Two Elements" illustrated such means applied to the crank and shaft of a wind shield cleaner. The court found that all the elements of the claim of the patent were in the device set forth in the patent to Fowler, No. 1,293,073, and that they did not perform any new function nor produce any different result.

The presumption in favor of validity of the patent on account of its allowance by the Patent Office was easily overcome, in the words of the Court, "when you consider that the only references cited by the Patent Office were Rosenthal, No. 981,948, and Morse et al., Reissue No. 14,920 and all the other pertinent references herein before. analyzed were omitted".

Claim 1 of Williams held invalid.