Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

question will arise, and that is, had he invented the feeding mechanism at that time, and did he use due diligence to perfect that and put it into a perfect machine, so as to make it of some practical utility?

"If the invention was perfected, as I have already said, or, if not perfected, if Mr. Johnson used reasonable diligence to perfect it, then he had a right to have it incorporated into his patent, and to supersede those that had intervened between his first discovery and his subsequent taking out of the patent. If he had not perfected it, and did not use due diligence to carry it into effect, and, in the mean time, before he got his patent, some one else had invented and used and incorporated into a practical useful machine that mode of feeding, then he could not, by subsequent patent, appropriate to himself what was embraced in the former machine between his caveat and the obtaining of his patent." (1 Fish., 351.)

The fact that a patent is granted to one person while another has a caveat pending and in force will not of itself vacate the patent granted nor authorize the Commissioner to grant a patent to the caveator. (Cochrane v. Waterman, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1844.)

11. CAVEAT PAPERS CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE OFFICE nor undergo alteration after they have once been filed; but the caveator, or any person properly authorthorized by him, can at any time obtain copies of the caveat papers at the usual rates. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.)

12. CAVEAT AS EVIDENCE.-A caveat may be resorted to to assist in construing a patent. (Smith v. Downing, 1 Fish., 64.)

And it is evidence as to an invention, so far as it ex

tends to the description of the invention and the machinery which was then constructed. (Jones v. Wetherell, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1855.)

But a caveat is not conclusive evidence that an invention is not perfected. (Johnson v. Root, 1 Fish., 351.)

A filed a caveat in the Patent Office April 17, 1854. B made application for a patent for the same invention November, 1854. No notice was given to A of this application, but a patent was granted to B January 9, 1855. A patent was subsequently granted to A. In a suit of the assignees of B against the assignees of A, held thatˇ the omission to give notice to A might be set up as one of the defenses under § 15 of the act of July 4, 1836, as proof that B "had surreptitiously or unjustly obtained the patent for that which was in fact discovered by another," &c. (Phelps v. Brown Bros., 1 Fish., 479.)

13. CAVEAT NOTICE TO THE COMMISSIONER ONLY.-The caveat gives no notice to the world or even to the interfering applicant. It is notice to the Commissioner only. (Hildreth v. Heath, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1841.)

But the Commissioner can perform no act upon a caveat but filing it, nor in consequence of it, except to give the caveator notice of a conflicting application when made. (11 Opinions Attorneys General, 65.)

14. FORM OF PETITION.

The petition of Frank Foresight, of Brandenberg, in the county of Mead, and State of Kentucky, respectfully represents

That he has made certain improvements in velocipedes, and that he is now engaged in making experiments for the purpose of perfecting the same, preparatory to applying for letters patent therefor. He therefore prays that the subjoined description of his invention may be filed as a caveat in the confidential archives of the Patent Office.

FRANK FORESIGHT.

15. DESCRIPTION.

The following is a description of my newly-invented velocipede, which is as full, clear, and exact as I am able at this time to give, reference being had to the drawing hereto annexed:

This invention relates to that class of velocipedes in which there are two wheels connected by a beam, forming a saddle for the rider, the feet being applied to cranks that revolve the front wheel.

The object of my invention is to render it unnecessary to turn the front wheel so much as heretofore, and at the same time to facilitate the turning of sharp curves. This I accomplish by fitting the front and the hind wheels on vertical pivots, and connecting them by means of a diagonal bar, as shown in the drawing, so that the turning of the front wheel also turns the back wheel with a position at an angle with the beams, thereby enabling it easily to turn a curve.

In the drawing A is the front wheel, B the hind wheel, and C the standards extending from the axle of the front wheel to the vertical pivot a in the beam b, and D is the cross-bar upon the end of a, by which the steering is done. The hind wheel B is also fitted with jaws c and a vertical pivot d. FRANK FORESIGHT.

Witnesses: ANDREW AXLE.

WILLIAM WHEELWRIGHT.

16. OATH.-No caveat can be filed in the secret archives of the office unless accompanied by an oath of the caveator that he is a citizen of the United States, or, if he is an alien, that he has resided for one year last past within the United States and has made oath of his intention to become a citizen thereof; nor unless the applicant also states, under oath, that he believes himself the original inventor of the art, machine, or improvement set forth in his caveat. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.) The form of oath will be substantially that provided for original applications, except that, as a caveat can only be filed by a citizen, or an alien who has resided for one year last past in the United States, and made oath of his intention to become a citizen, the oath should be modified accordingly. (Ib., vide infra, § 323.)

[blocks in formation]

29. Harmful inventions not patent- 43. Prior foreign patent.

able.

30. Art.

44. Unity or diversity of invention. 45. Division of the application.

17. WHAT MAY BE PATENTED.-Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof, and not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his application, unless the same is proved to have been abandoned, may, upon payment of the duty required by law and other due proceedings had, obtain a patent therefor. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 24.)

18. INVENTIONS FIRST PATENTED ABROAD MAY BE PATENTED IN THE UNITED STATES. -No person shall be debarred from receiving a patent for his invention or discovery, nor shall any patent be declared invalid by

reason of its having been first patented or caused to be patented in a foreign country, provided the same shall not have been introduced into public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application, and that the patent shall expire at the same time with the foreign patent, or, if there be more than one, at the same time with the one having the shortest term; but in no case shall it be in force more than seventeen years. (Ib., § 25.)

19. AN ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE NOT PATENTABLE UNLESS REDUCED TO PRACTICE.-A discovery of some new principle, theory, or elementary truth, abstracted from its application, is not a new invention, and cannot be protected by a patent. To entitle himself to a patent the applicant must reduce it to practice, must embody it in some practical machine or method of rendering it available or useful. (Whitney v. Emmett, Bald., 311; Evans v. Eaton, Pet. C. C., 341, 342.)

And when the discovery is reduced to practice by any means, old or new, resulting usefully, it is patentable, independent of the machinery by which the application is made. (Foote v. Silsby, 2 Blatchf., 265.)

20. APPLICATION OF A LAW OF NATURE.-He who first discovers that a law of nature can be applied, and, having devised machinery to make it operative, introduces it in practical form to his fellow-men, is the inventor not merely of the mechanism, but of the force which operrates through the mechanical medium. He may assert and establish his property not only in the formal device for which mechanical ingenuity can at once, as soon as the principle is known, imagine a thousand substitutes, but in the essential principle which his machine was the first

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »