TP
ZIO 148
IRLF
32 022
CHEMICAL PATENTS
THOMAS
CHEMICAL PATENTS
AND
ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS
By EDWARD THOMAS
ll
Author of Process Digest
Member of Appellate Federal Bars of
New York and Washington
JOHN BYRNE & CO.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1917
Tf fc
Copyright
By EDWARD THOMAS 1917
PREFACE.
The present book is more than a revision of my Process Digest, since it is entirely rewritten, all the cases being reread from the point of view of an attorney and expert witness, instead of that of a Patent Office Examiner. For this reason there are specific notes on the kind of evi- dence needed in chemical and allied cases, and also notes covering the cases on damages, licenses, etc. No attempt has been made to criticize any decision or the findings on which it is based. The book is intended as a statement of the law, with a practically complete ''finding list" of the cases on which the law of chemical patents is based, and it also in- cludes the principal cases intimately related in reasoning to such cases.
While errors will undoubtedly be found it is believed that they are only such as are easily recognized. I only regret that, unlike Eobinson, I have not the leisure needed to spend two years in rereading and veri- fying every cited case.
Cases are cited, from the reports most likely to be available, and which in general indicate the authority of the decision ; viz : reports are given preference in the following order U. S. (including Wallace etc.) ; F. E.; 0. G.; Fish. (Pat. Cases); Fish. Pat. Reports; Robb (Pat. Cases) ; Ban. and A. ; Blatschf ., etc. Readers who have only the Official Gazette can rapidly locate the F. R. and U. S. cases included therein by ascertaining the approximately parallel volumes from the table on page 4. Since the number of cases cited approaches that in the larger works on patent law, the notes have been condensed by citing in general, only the appeal case, or the last case of a series, if that rules on all the points previously raised, though where the prior cases are cited therein from unusual reports, the 0. G. citations are given herein.
It is too much to hope that everyone will be satisfied with the group- ing of the cases. An attempt has been made to cite all cases on obscure points, and on leading points to cite all important cases together with those cases which contain many citations. The work covers 242 U. S. ; 237 F. R. and 235 0. G.
30 Vesey Street, New York City.
372184
TABLE OF PARALLEL VOLUMES.
|
YEAR. |
o5 1 C O |
jrf <& | M 1 |
•I 'o |> m \-> |
00 £ Q Q P- P. < |
|
187<> |
1-2 |
*14-15 |
||
|
1873 |
3-4 |
*16 |
||
|
1874 |
5-6 |
* 17-22 |
||
|
1875 |
7-8 |
*23 |
||
|
1876 |
9-10 |
91-93 |
||
|
1877 |
11-12 |
93-97 |
||
|
1878 |
13-14 |
97 |
||
|
1879 |
15-16 |
97 |
||
|
1880 |
17-18 |
1-4 |
100-102 |
|
|
1881 |
19-20 |
5-9 |
102-103 |
|
|
1882 |
21-" |
9-14 |
104-106 |
|
|
1883 |
23.95 |
14-18 |
106-109 |
|
|
1884 |
26-99 |
18-92 |
109-112 |
|
|
1885 |
30-33 |
22-25 |
11°-116 |
|
|
1886 |
34-37 |
25-29 |
116-119 |
|
|
1887 |
38-41 |
99-32 |
119-123 |
|
|
1888 1889 |
42-45 46-49 |
32-36 36-40 |
123-128 199-132 |
|
|
1890 1891 |
50-53 54-57 |
40-44 44-48 |
132-137 138-141 |
|
|
1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 |
58-61 62-65 66-69 70-73 74-77 78-81 82-85 86-89 90-93 94-97 98-101 102-107 108-113 114-1 19 120-125 126-131 132-137 138-149 150-161 162-173 174-185 186-197 198-209 210-221 222-233 |
48-52 52-58 58-64 64-70 70-76 77-82 83-90 90-97 97-104 104-111 111-118 118-125 125-132 133-140 140-148 148-156 156-164 164-173 173-182 182-190 191-199 200-208 208-217 218-227 227-236 |
143-145 147-150 148-155 155-159 161-163 167 169-170 169 177-179 179-180 183-186 183-191 192 193-198 198-204 206-207 200-211 213-214 215-217 220-221 225-229 226-229 231-233 235-239 239-242 |
2 2, 3 5,6,7 7,8,9 9,10,11 11,12,13 14, 15 15, 16, 17 17,18 16-19 21,22 23,24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 33 34 36-38 37-39 39-41 41 42,43 |
*Wall
TEXT.
The intention of the patent law of the United States is to give a monopoly for seventeen years to the inventor or discoverer of a new art or a new utility in any substance, structure or piece of machinery. The inventor is required to publish a brief, clear description of his invention and to carefully define it (viz: claim it), so that anyone may at any time find out whether he is infringing on the rights of the inventor. Of course in carrying out this law many practical difficulties arise. It is, for example, often difficult to decide how far a definition or claim can be pushed in covering items substantially the same from one point of view though they differ in other ways. Then, too, the definition must cover a distinct step in advance and not something that is simply better but not otherwise new ; further, the definition must cover the real invention and not a mere application of it.
It is obviously impossible for the Patent Office or the courts to ex- amine every workshop, laboratory and factory, so in judging whether the improvement is really new it is necessary to take such published data as are available and decide from these whether the applicant for a patent has shown such an improvement as any skilled mechanic or ex- pert in the art might be expected to have extemporized, or whether it is more than that and so deserving of a patent. In facing these difficul- ties and the analogous ones that arise in determining the scope of an invention, etc., the courts have laid down certain fundamental princi- ples, such as that it is not patentable1 to put an old machine to a new use; that an abandoned experiment2 cannot defeat a later patent; and that where an improvement goes into extensive use from its own3 merits, a patent allowed on it must almost certainly have been justified.
Every patent (except for design patents) is directed either to an "instrument" or to an "operation," the "instrument" being either a machine, a "manufacture" (such as a structure which has some physical utility), or else a composition of matter, (though this last is really only a specific form of manufacture). Every chemical patent properly so called seems to be directed either to an " operation ' ' per se, or else to an "instrument" whose patentability depends on its relationship to an operation in or on material outside itself, e. g., a dye.
lAmes v. Howard, 1 Bobb. 689; Bean 2Crown v. Aluminum, 108 F. E. 845. v. Smallwood, 2 Eobb. 133. See also note 82.
3Falk v. Missouri, 103 F. E. 295.
5
CHEMICAL PATENTS
In addition to what are strictly chemical patents and "operation" patents there are many analogous patents out of which problems arise, more nearly allied to chemical and "operation" patents than they are allied to strictly mechanical patents. Such a problem was presented by the British patent covering easily fusible tubes of water within the hollow walls of safes to increase their resistance to fire. This was held infringed* by a hollow safe wall filled with alum which gives off water when heated. Such problems obviously call for expert testimony,5 as do most chemical patents.
Almost all patents, therefore, may be divided into two classes, first those in which patentability turns 011 mechanics6 in its restricted sense (viz : the mechanics of rigid bodies and machines) , and secondly those in which7 patentability turns on chemistry or on electrical or molar physics (viz: the physics of masses of matter, such as the flow7 of liquids8 etc.). Though the distinctions9 between processes and "manufactures" and machines are sometimes10 vital, and from a strictly philosophical point
4Milner v. Harrison, cited at 2 Web. Pat. Gas. 291.
SDececo v. Gilehrist, 125 F. E. 295; Sundh Elec. v. General Elec., 204 F. R. 277; Schupphaus v. Stevens, 95 O. G. 1452 ; Mark v. Greenwalt, 138 O. G. 965 ; 140 O. G. 509; Keyes v. Grant, 118 IT. S. 25 ; A. B. Dick v. Underwood, 235 F. E. 300; Gutta Percha v. Goodyear, 3 Ban. and A. 212; Stevens v. Keating, 2 Web. 181; Fabric Coloring v. Alex- ander, 109 F. E. 328; Kintner v. Mar- coni, 215 F. E. 104; Hassam Paving v. Consolidated, 215 F. E. 114; Wallerstein v. Christian, 215 F. E. 919; Warren v. Grand Eapids, 216 F. E. 364; Merrell v. Natural, 219 F. E. 572. For the need of weighing opinion evidence carefully in obscure questions of electricity, see Pieper v. S. S. White, 228 F. E/30.
6A few patents depend for their novelty on the cooperation of parts in the mind of the user or operative. Krell Auto v. Story, 207 F. E. 946, and citations there- in. Certain patents on electric signalling also seem to depend on mental coopera- tion, see O'Beilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, and National EJectric Signal v. United, 189 F. E. 727. But a process which de- pends on cooperation of the nervous sys- tem is not patentable. Morton v. N. Y. Eye, 2 Fish. 320. But see, ex parte, Sanche, 80 O. G. 185.
7Porter v. Baldwin, 227 F. E. 216;
Stevens v. Keating, 2 Web. 181 at 188; Bartey v. Lincoln, 4 Fish. 379 ; Amer. Fibre Chamois v. Buckskin, 72 F. E. 508. Process of forming wire glass. Western Glass v. Schmertz, 185 F. R. 788.
SHorn v. Bergner, 68 F. E. 428; Ex parte Eogers, 87 O. G. 699; Terry v. Sturtevant, 231 F. E. 162.
9Uhlman v. Arnholdt and Schaefer Brewing, 53 F. E. 485.
lOEx parte Eogers, 87 O. G. 699 ; Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S. 412; Mitchell v. Con- nellsville, 231 F. E. 131; Kiefer v. Unionwerke, 231 F. E. 733; General Electric v. Laco, 233 F. E. 96; Fancy v. Empire Fire Clay, 47 F. E. 313; Pratt v. Thompson, 83 F. E, 516; Weierman v. Shaw, 157 F. E. 928. Where inven- tion lay in process only, product claim is void. Dieckmann v. Milwaukee, 174 F. E. 150 ; Compare National Enamelling v. N. E., 151 F. E. 19; Le Eoy v. Tat- ham, 14 How. 156; 22 How. 132. Com- pare O'Eeilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62; Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252; Bos- ton Elastic v. Easthampton, 5 O. G. 696; Bell v. Gray, 15 O. G. 776; Bullock Electric v. Westinghouse, 129 F. E. 105. Compare Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S. 224; Eisdon v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68. Compare Boyden v. Westinghouse, 170 U. S. 537. An article claim cannot be construed as a process. Ewart v. Mo-
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS. 7
of view always11 exist, yet the present writer believes that in practice it is impossible to define the lines of distinction so that the definition will be of universal practical utility in patent law. The difficulty of drawing such lines and the unreasonableness of attempting to deduce them from the decisions of the courts lies largely in the fact that patentability de- pends on utility, bearing in mind that utility means "industrial12 value," and this utility may be defined either by the13 product or the14 result of the machine or process,15 or by the adaptability of the * ' manufacture ' ' to cooperate with something16 else, or it may depend on the coordination of its parts among themselves.
The claims of a United States patent, in the case of most machines and many processes (including chemical processes), may well be re- garded as definitions of the parts of the invention in terms of their abso- lute17 industrial value, viz: in terms of the function they contribute to the elements with which they are associated; but in the case of many manufactures (for example textile fabrics) and compositions of matter, the claim merely recites the novel useful elements. Now since the indus- trial value of an invention may be often approached from more than one point of view it seems obvious that a claim may on its face cover
line, 30 F. E. 871. Where the invention lay in using an old skein in a novel way, a claim to the skein is void. Grant v. Walter, 38 F. E. 594; 148 U. S. 547.
UNew Process Fermentation v. Koch, 21 F. E. 580; Compare in re Weston, 94 O. G. 1786; Ex parte Kilbourn, 221 O. G. 737. But see ex parte, Trevette, 97 O. G. 1173. Compare Expanded Metal v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366; and citations therein.
12See street flushing machine where in- vention lay in angle of incidence of stream. Sanitary Street Flushing v. Am- sterdam, 225 F. E. 389; 229 F. E. 421; Eibel v. Eemington, 234 F. E. 624.
ISEeichenbach v. Kelly, 94 O. G. 1185; Sydeman v. Thoma, 141 O. G. 866; Vac- uum v. Innovation, 234 F. E. 942; Pel- ton Water Wheel v. Doble, 190 F. E. 760; Buzzell v. Andrews, 25 F. E. 822; Knick- erbocker v. Eogers, 61 F. E. 297; King v. Hubbard, 97 F. E. 795; Diamond v. Brown, 130 P. E. 896; 137 F. E. 910. Compare United Shoe v. Greenman, 153 F. E. 283 ; Grever v. U. S. Hoffman, 202 F. E. 923. See mere change of angle in a grate. McClave v. Treadwell, 220 F. E. 144.
l4Novelty v. Brookfield, 170 F. E. 946; Mine v. Braeckel, 197 F. E. 897; Cimi- otti Unhairing v. Am. Fur., 193 U. S. 670 and citations; Lewis v. Cronemeyer, 130 O. G. 300; Knight v. Gavit, 11 Fed. Cas. 765; Treadwell v. Fox, 3 App. Comr. Pats. 201; Wells v. Hegaman, 29 Fed. Cas. 648; Mayer v. Mutschler, 237 F. E. 654.
15Le Eoy v. Tatham, 22 How. 132. Bleaching flour is patentable, even though the product may be an adulterant. Naylor v. Alsop, 168 F. E. 911. "It is not a method of making better coke, but a better method of making coke." Mit- chell v. Connellsville, 231 F. E. 131.
16Hogan v. Westmoreland, 167 F. E. 327 ,• Kennicott v. Holt Ice, 230 F. E. 157; Voorhees Eubber v. McDonell, 231 F. E. 741. Compare Sundh v. General, 235 F. E. 708. Insulated gas burner joint not anticipated by same material for whole burner. Bogart v. Hinds, 26 F. E. 149; Ewart v. Moline, 30 F. E. 873. But see Maitland v. Gibson, 63 F. E. 126; 63 F. E. 840.
17Bell v. Gray, 15 O. G. 776; Wyeth v. Stone, 2 Eobb. 23; Whitney v. Emmett, 1 Eobb. 567.
8 CHEMICAL PATENTS
only a machine, but depend for its validity on, and have its scope de- termined by considerations which are not mechanical.18 Again, for example where a novel elasticity is obtained in a knit fabric, it may be impossible to state whether the invention lies in the fabric itself, or in the method of forming it.
Many considerations must determine from what point of view a claim should be drawn, since on the one hand a process claim is not in- fringed by the selling of the product19 of the process, while on the other hand situations arise like that in which an inventor patented a special form of skein which he devised for use in dyeing, but the patent was held void because the skein turned out to be old, though its use in dye- ing20 was new.
The subject of the relationship of processes, products, machines, etc., is further complicated by the fact that the courts usually construe patents liberally in the21 endeavor to give adequate protection to pat- entees who are relying on imperfectly conceived and badly constructed specifications and claims.
The present writer realizes that it is impossible for him to include every case which turned on considerations having their basis in facts which are primarily chemical in their nature, or which belong with chemical facts, largely because such facts frequently do not appear on the face of the decision. Besides this there will be some disagreement as to what constitute such facts. It is believed, however, that the cases cited herein cover almost every pertinent point.
The present writer feels sure that if the same attention were given to specification planning22 and writing as is often given to claim draft-
ISSeibert Cyl. Oil Cup v. Harper Steam Am. Gramophone v. Gimbel, 234 F. R.
Lub., 4 F. R. 328; King v. Hub- 361.
bard, 97 F. R. 795 ; National Electric 20Grant v. Walter, 148 U. S. 547. v. Telefunken, 208 F. R. 679 (overruled 21New Process Fermentation v. Maus, on new evidence, 230 F. R. 829); Detroit 20 F. R. 723; National Enamelling v. Copper v. Mine, 215 F. R. 100; U. S. N. E. 151 F. R. 19; Novelty v. Brook- Hoffman v. Becker, 224 F. R. 484; Corn- field, 170 F. R. 946. ing v. Burden, 15 How. 252 ; Deceeo v. 22General Subconstruction v. Netcher, Gilchrist, 125 F. R. 293; Hubbell v. U. 174 F. R. 236; Lumber v. Nestor, 178 S., 179 U. S. 82; Weintraub v. Hewitt, F. R. 927; Ballou v. Potter, 110 F. R, 378 O. G. 889; 180 O. G. 882. But 969; National Enamelling v. N. E., 151 "method" has frequently been used in F. R. 19; Gilbert v. Waltzelham, 197 F. describing a mere mechanical coordina- R. 315; Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171; tion of elements. Flower v. Detroit, 127 McKnight v. Pohle, 130 O. G. 2069. In U. S. 557 ; Burt v. Every, 133 U. S. re Merrill, 199 .0. G. 618 ; Bene v. Jean- 349. See elasticity of hairs in fur. Cim- tet, 129 U. S. 683 ; Gottfried v. Crescent iotti Unhairing v. Am. Fur, 193 U. S. Brewing, 9 F. R. 762; Royer v. Chicago, 670, and citations therein. 20 F. R. 853 ; Tannage v. Zahn, 66 F. R.
19Merrill v. Yoemans, 94 U. S. 568; 986; Chemical v. Raymond, 68 F. R.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS. 9
ing, much expensive litigation would be avoided, for the patentability of claims and the correctness of the underlying theory of the specification can often be made so obvious as to render it useless to attack them in court. Solicitors often forget that theoretically the specification is not addressed to lawyers, but to those skilled in the art, and must at least set forth real and fundamental facts of the invention, and not merely irrelevant observations, however new and interesting the phenomena23 may seem to be at the time.
Specification writers often forget that any process and composition claim is void if the steps or ingredients enumerated in the claim are less24 than those which the specification makes essential ; and that, in the same way, if a given device or limitation is essential, according to the specification, one who does26 not use it is not an infringer. But, while claims are limited by the statement of invention, they are not limited by the examples given, and may be much26 broader than such examples.
Many a patent has been rendered worthless by failure of the speci- fication writer to include a careful detailed description of how the process, etc., might be carried out, apparently through fear lest such a description might be construed as a necessary limitation of the claims. Specification writers seem to forget that such a description is strictly analogous to the drawings of a mechanical patent, and if properly worded need never constitute a limitation.
570; 71 F. R. 179; Kennedy v. Solar, ting step in electrical control method.
69 F. R. 716; Cerealine v. Bates, 77 General v. Garrett, 141 F. R. 994; re-
F. R. 970; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 F. versed on ground step is only modified.
R. 910; National v. Swift, 104 F. R. 87; General v. Garrett, 146 F. R. 66. Com-
Bracewell v. Passaic, 107 F. R. 467. pare National Newsboard v. Elkhart, 123
Such as stating that a given apparatus is F. R. 431; Hentschel v. Carthage, 169 F.
necessary. Georgia v. Billfinger, 129 F. R. 114; National Enamelling v. N. E.,
R. 131. 153 F. R. 184. The word "meantime"
23Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; Car- in a claim cannot be ignored. Crown
negie v. Cambria, 185 U. S. 425. Cork v. American, 211 F. R. 650; Trus-
24Universal Brush v. Sonn, 146 F. R. sed v. Corrugated, 222 F. R. 514. 517; Downs v. Teter-Heany, 150 F. R. 25Doubleday v. Bracheo, 2 Fish. 560;
122. Compare Arnold v. Phelps, 20 F. Am. Wood Paper v. Heft, 3 Fish. 316;
R. 315; Crown Cork v. American, 211 but see Buchanan v. Rowland, 2 Fish.
F. R. 650 ; Orr v. Aschenbach, 225 F. R. 341. Compare Strong v. Noble, 3 Fish.
71; L. H. Gilmer v. Geisel, 187 F. R, 586.
606; 187 F. R. 941; Francis v. Mellor, 26Ex parte Steinmetz, 224 O. G. 363; 1 O. G. 48 ; Ex parte Loeser, 9 O. G. ex parte Fritts, 227 O. G. 737 ; Electric 837; In re Creveling, 117 O. G. 1167. v. Carborundum, 102 F. R. 618; Good- Compare in re Dosselman, 167 O. G. 983; win v. Eastman, 213 F. R. 231; Tilgh- Dittmar v. Rix, 1 F. R. 342; Simmonds man v. Proctor, 102 IT. S. 707; Buch- Counter v. Young, 35 F. R. 517; Royer anan v. Rowland, 2 Fish. 341. But see v. Coupe, 38 F. R. 113. Is therefore void North American Chemical v. Keno, 227 if it fails to distinguish from prior art. F. R. 63. Cerealine v. Bates, 77 F. R. 970. Omit-
10
CHEMICAL PATENTS
The question of joint27 inventorship of processes, as set forth in the decisions, is difficult to reconcile with analogous decisions on machine patents.
Patents which seem to be mechanical method patents, are apparently very rare except in arts like the textile art, where elasticity and other obscure properties often are vital, so that the mechanical methods of kniting, weaving, etc. have a profound but not easily28 foreseen effect on the product.
A process is independent of a given form of machine, though some processes appear to be necessarily performed only by a given machine at the time29 of patenting. The patentability of processes which are pri- marily mechanical is extremely difficult of definition30 and usually can- not be decided on the31 face of the patents. Apparently a series of steps is patent able if its32 utility overcomes a hitherto insuperable obstacle, or depends on an idea which has previously been thought33 preposterous, or depends on some hitherto unsuspected possibility in the34 materials used.
27Welsbaeh v. Cosmopolitan, 104 F. E. 83; Barrow v. Wetherill, MacArthur, 315.
28General Knit v. Steber, 190 F. E. 47; Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 F. E. 374; Baling hay. Dederick v. Cassell, 9 F. E. 306. But see method of making cig- arettes. Ludington Cigarette v. Anar- gyros, 188 F. E. 318. Fabric valid. Kerr v. Hoyle, 55 F. E. 658.
29Doelger v. German-American, 204 F. B. 274. Compare note 102.
SONeidich v. Edwards, 169 F. E, 424; Edison v. Allis, 191 F. E. 837; San Francisco v. Beyrle, 195 F. E. 516; En- gineer v. Hotel, 226 F. E. 779; 226 F.
E. 949. Compare Kennedy v. Beaver, 232 F. E. 477; Ex parte Mann, 3 App. Com. Pats. 367; Appleton v. Star, 60 F. ^.. 411. Mere cutting, etc. and assembl- ing not patentable. Wells Glass v. Hen- derson, 67 F. E. 930. Compare Interna- tional Tooth Crown v. Bennett, 72 F. E. 169; 77 F. E. 313; International v. Kyle, 96 F. E. 442. Compare Strom v. Weir, 83 F. E. 170. Compare American Strawboard v. Elkhart, 84 F. B. 960. Compare Goldie v. Diamond, 81 F. B. 173. Making rasp teeth not patentable. Stokes v. Heller, 96 F. B. 104.
SIMatteawan Mfg. v. Emmons, 185
F. B. 814.
32A patent whose only purpose is to produce a deceptive product is not use-
ful within the meaning of patent law. Bickard v. Du Bon, 103 F. B. 868; Edi- son v. Hardie, 68 F. B. 487; Ex parte Morris, 1870 C. D. 71.
33Goldie v. Diamond, 81 F. E. 173; Breuchaud v. Mutual, 166 F. B, 75:i ; American Graphophone v. Universal, 151 F. E. 595; American Graphophone v. Leeds, 170 F. E. 327; Westinghouse v. Allis, 176 F. B. 362; Porter v. Baldwin. 227 F. E. 216; Carnegie v. Cambria, 185 U. S. 425; Snook-Roentgen v. Stetson, 237 F. E. 204.
34Lalance and Grosjean v. Habermann. 53 F. E. 375; Pittsburg Reduction v. Cowles Elec. Smelt., 55 F. E. 301; Chis- holm v. Johnson, 106 F. E. 191; re- versed 115 F. B. 625, but see dissent, and Chisholm v. Fleming, 133 F. B. 924; Utilizing heat of impurities in alumina hydrate when treated with acid. Damon v. Eastwick. 14 F. E. 40; Karfiol v. Bothner, 165 F. R. 923; Mica v. Com- mercial, 166 F. R. 440. Bepairing in- jured tree. Davey v. Cutter, 197 P. B. 178. Grading grinding sand. Hitch- cock v. American, 227 F. B. 227. Mc- Clurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202; United Nickel v. Harris, 17 O. G. 325 (see other United Nickel cases). In a manufacture, General Electric Co. v. Laco, 233 F. B. 96. Compare Eibel v. Remington, 234 F. B. 624. Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U. S. 261.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
11
A method of assembling a ball bearing having both, inner and outer races integral was held35 patentable, though putting an old seam in a difficult place was held not to be a patentable36 process. Mere transpo- sitions of the material used to another part of a machine operating on them does not make a patentable37 process.
The result which was hitherto38 unattainable will confer patent- ability on the process which produces the new result, even if that result or utility is only in enabling the product to be obtained at less39 cost and in less time, though the new result or utility must be revolutionary, and not merely better.
It seems generally agreed that a process which involves a new se- quence of chemical or mechanical steps, or an electrical operating system, is40 patentable if the result differs greatly from that produced by the old order of steps or organization, either in increased41 efficiency of work, or
35Hess Bright v. Standard, 177 F. B. 435. Compare Breuchaud v. Mutual, 157 F. E. 844; reversed, 166 F. E. 753. Com- pare in re Weston, 94 O. G. 1786.
36McKay v. Jackman, 12 F. E. 615. But putting a new foundation in a diffi- cult place is patentable. Breuchaud v. Mutual, 166 F. B. 753. Grinding down part of the mussel shells and then cut- ting blanks is not patentable. In re Weber, 117 O. G. 1494.
37Gindorff v. Deering, 81 F. B. 952; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531, distinguish- ing McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202. Compare a heating system. Ex parte Dixon, 123 O. G. 653.
38United Nickel v. California, 25 F. E, 475 ; Adams v. Bridgewater, 26 F. E. ' 324; Gary v. Lovell, 31 F. E. 344; Pa- cific v. Southern, 48 F. E. 300; Vermont v. Gibson, 56 F. E. 143 ; Salts Textile v. Tingue, 227 F. E. 115; Philadelphia Eub- ber v. U. S., 229 F. E. 150; but see Phil- adelphia Eubber v. Portage, 227 F. E. 623; Tilghman v. Morse, 1 O. G. 574; United Nickel v. Anthes, 1 O. G. 578; k, Thomas v. Electric Porcelain, 111 F. B. 473. Even if the result is merely mak- ing intelligible signals. National Elec. Signal v. United Wireless, 189 F. E. 727; Marconi v. De Forest, 138 F. E. 657; Marconi v. National, 213 F. E. 815; French v. Eogers, 1 Fish. 133; O'Eeilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62. Uniting metal to rubber. Hood v. Boston, 21 F. E. 67.
39Beryle v. San Francisco, 181 F. E.
692; Kahn v. Starrells, 135 F. E. 532; Gottfried v. Bartolomae, 13 O. G. 1128; overruled Crescent v. Gottfried, 128 U. S. 158; Gibbs v. Hoefner, 19 F. E. 323; Eastern Paper Bag v. Standard, 30 F. E. 63; N. Y. Grape Sugar v. Buffalo, 18 F. E. 638; Travers v. Amer- ican Cordage, 64 F. E. 771; Schwarz- walder v. N. Y., 66 F. E. 152. Or in an electrical distribution method, to make it commercially more useful. Bullock v. Crocker, 141 F. E. 101. But see Hyde v. Minerals, 214 F. E. 100, reversed, 16 Met. and Chem. Eng. 21 ; and De Lamar v. De Lamar, 117 F. E. 240. Compare Kintner v. Atlantic, 230 F. E. 829. Min- erals Separation v. Miami, 237 F. E. 609.
40New Process Fermentation v. Maus, 20 F. E. 725; Thomson v. Two Eivers, 63 F. E. 120; Strater v. Keyes, 69 F.
E. 619; American Fibre Chamois v. Buckskin, 72 F. E. 508; Chicago v. Charles Pope, 84 F. E. 977; Streator v. Wire Glass, 97 F. E. 950; Johnson v. Foos, 141 F. E. 73; Pressed Prism v. Continuous, 150 F. E. 355; American Graphophone v. Universal, 151 F. E. 595 ; Westinghouse v. Beacon, 95 F. E. 462; Byerly v. Cleveland, 31 F. E. 73; Daniel Green v. Dolgeville, 210 F. E. 164; Con- solidated v. Hassam Paving, 227 F. E. 436. Utilizing all waves in wireless. Mar- coni v. National, 213 F. E. 815.
41Eastern Paper Bag v. Standard, 30
F. B. 63; German-American v. Erdrich, 98 F. E. 300; Diamond v. Dean, 111 F.
12
CHEMICAL PATENTS
in42 character of product. But the mere altering of sequence of steps or the steps themselves such as any chemist or one skilled in the art would be likely to devise is not43 patentable nor does it avoid44 infringe- ment.
Even in a mechanical process the adding of a new45 step, or the
R. 380; Universal Brush v. Sonn, 146 F. R. 517; Cameron v. Village, 159 F. P. 453; Malignani v. Hill Wright, 177 P. R. 430; Moore Filter v. Tonopah, 201 F. R. 532; Coal and Coke v. Ernst, 212 F. R. 434; 219 F. R. 898; Ex parte Wetherell, 1869 C. D. 87; Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707; Ex parte Blum- er, 72 O. G. 1783.
42Wolff v. E. I. Du Pont, 134 F. R, 863 ; Victor v. American Gramophone, 189 F. R. 359; Standard Asphalt v. American, 203 F. R. 508; Goodwin v. Eastman, 213 F. R. 231; McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202; Irish v. Knapp, 18 O. G. 735; R. Thomas v. Elec. Por- celain, 111 P. R. 473; United Nickel v. Manhattan, 4 Ban. and A. 173; Pacific v. Bingham, 62 F. R. 281; Horn v. Bergner, 68 F. R. 428; U. S. Mitis v. Carnegie, 89 F. R. 343; Hemolin v. Harway, 131 F. R. 483; Johnson v. Foos, 141 F. R. 73. Polishable wire glass. Schmertz v. Pittsburgh, 168 F. R. 73; Schmertz v. Western, 178 F. R. 973; 178 F. R, 977. Bleached untainted flour. Xaylor v. Alsop, 168 F. R. 911.
«Peters v. Chicago, 215 F. R. 724; Ex parte Mason, 1871 C. D. 182; Ex parte Taylor, 1871 C. D. 309; Ex parte Leggett, 2 O. G. 199; Adamson v. Ded- erick, 2 O. G. 523; Ex parte Hibbard, 4 O. G. 54. When old in almost the same art. Meyer v. Pritchard, 7 O. G. 1012. Ex parte Holcomb, 16 O. G. 48; Ex parte Spear, 16 O. G. 1502; Mond v. Commissioner Patents, 91 O. G. 1437; Ex parte Wickers, 124 O. G. 1521; 129 O. G. 2074; In re Wright, 151 O. G. 1015; In re Droop, 133 O. G. 517; In re White, 136 0. G. 1771; Zimmerman v. Advance, 232 F. R. 866; Union Paper Bag v. Waterbury, 70 F. R. 240; Amer- ican Fibre Chamois v. Port Huron, 72 F. R. 516; Cerealine v. Bates, 101 F. R. 272; Stuart v. Auger, 149 F. R. 748; Highland v. Schmertz, 178 F. R. 944. Compare Schmertz v. Western, 178 F. R, 973; 178 F. R. 977; Sanford Mills v. Mass. Mohair, 119 F. R. 355; Farrel
v. United Verde, 121 F. R. 552. Making a new form of rubber ring. Coldren v. Empire, 17;1 F. R. 361; Fried. Krupp v. Midvale, 191 F. R. 588. Singeing dyed goods not patentable. Sarfert v. Chip- man, 194 F. R. 113. Hulling in succes- sive machines each set closer, not patent- able process. Ball v. Coker, 210 F. R. 278. Compare Ex parte Shippen, 8 O. G. 726.
Reducing quantity of re-agents. Hyde v. Minerals, 214 F. R. 100, reversed 242 U. S. 261.
44General v. Garrett, 146 F. R. 66; Pressed Prism v. Continuous, 150 F. R. 355; Malignani v. Germania, 169 F. R. 299; General Electric v. Hill-Wright, 174 F. R. 996, 174 F. R. 1013; Malig- nani v. Hill-Wright, 177 F. R. 430; Coal and Coke v. Ernst, 212 F. R, 434; 219 F. R. 898; National v. Flexible Conduit, 215 F. R, 388; U. S. Frumentum v. Lan- hoff, 216 F. R. 610; Chadeloid v. Thurs- ton, 220 F. R. 685; Hitchcock v. Ameri- can, 227 F. R. 227; Kintner v. Atlantic, 230 F. R, 829; Hoffman v. Aronson, 4 Fish. 456; Hammerschlag v. Bancroft, 32 F. R. 585; N. Y. v. Elmira, 82 F. R. 459; U. S. Mitis v. Carnegie, 89 F. R. 343. But there is no infringement where omitted steps modify others. U. S. Glass v. Atlas, 90 F. R. 724. Such as expand- ing an inner instead of compressing an outer tube. Burdon v. Williams, 128 F. R. 927. But not in a highly developed knit goods art. Kahn v. Starrells, 13.1 F. R. 464. But in a highly developed art the order of steps is vital. Dieckniann v. Milwaukee, 174 F. R. 150.
45German-American v. Loew, loo F. R. 124; 164 F. R. 855; Byerley v. Sun, 184 F. R. 455; Moore v. Tonopah, 201 F. R. 532; Hassam Paving v. Consoli- dated, 215 F. R. 114; National v. Flex- ible Conduit, 215 F. R. 388; Waller- stein v. Liebmann, 215 F. R. 915; Mc- Cormick v. Medusa. 222 F. R, 288; Shaw v. Colwell, 11 F. R. 711; Guarantee v. New Haven Gas Light, 39 F. R, 268. Fumigating at night not patentable over
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
13
substituting of a new46 step for an old step makes the new47 process paten table if it produces a radically new result. The new process may, however, infringe48 the old process. Sometimes, however, especially in an art which is evolving rather rapidly, it is difficult to decide what is patentably a49 new step or a new result which will confer patentability, because the mere increasing of the degree of a step, or doing it by ma-
clay, though better. Wall v. Leek, 61 F. E. 291, 66 F. E. 552. Filtering and adding a coagulant. N. Y. v. Jewell, 61 F. K. 840; Schwartzwalder v. N. Y., 66 F E. 152. Even so simple a one as us- ing a rubber pinch-cock. General Elec- tric v. Hill- Wright, 174 F. E. 996; General Electric v. Germania, 174 F. E. 1013. Molding wet concrete in absorb- ent sand. Emerson and Norris v. Simp- son Bros., 188 F. E. 808. Artificially propelling sand for sand blast. Tilgh- man v. Morse, 1 O. G. 574.
46Ex parte Waterman, 17 O. G. 451; Ex parte Butz, 67 O. G. 677; New Process v. Maus, 122 U. S. 431; Merrell v. Powdered Milk, 215 F. E. 922; Elec- tric v.v Pittsburgh, 125 F. E. 926; Pressed Prism v. Continuous, 150 F. E. 355; Nay- lor v. Alsop, 168 F. E. 911; Clinton v. Wright, 65 F. E. 425; reversed, 67 F. E. 790; Everett v. Haulenbeek, 68 F. E. 911. But not if the same step is ana- loigous elsewhere, Evans v. Suess, 86 F. E. 779, but see dissent; Eawson v. West- ern, 118 F. E. 575. Making linoleum spongy to make it adhere is novel. Mel- vin v. Thomas Potter, 91 F. E. 151. Even if the new step is merely making the step more perfect. Hedden v. Eaton, 11 Fed. Cas. 1019. Building up by over- lapping, patentable over making plastic mass. Mica Insulator v. Union, 137 F. E. 928. Using an absorbent mold to cast cement blocks. Donaldson v. Eoks- ament, 170 F. E. 192; 176 F. E. 368; Donaldson v. Marbolith, 173 F. E. 83; Emerson v. Simpson, 202 F. E. 747. Making tinted asphalt roofing. Stand- ard Paint v. Bird, 175 F. E. 346. Curing rubber by steam. Carew v. Boston, 1 O. G. 91. Grinding pulp across grain. Miller v. Androscoggin Pulp, 1 O. G. 409. Saturating a stone by forcing through, differs from forcing into. Ean- some v. Norris, 2 O. G. 295.
47E. Thomas v. Electric, 111 F. E. 923 ; Victor v. American Gramophone, 189 F. E. 359; San Francisco v. Beyrle,
195 F. E. 516; Merrell v. Natural, 217 F. E. 578; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780; Klein v. Park, 13 O. G. 5; Ex parte Frasch, 77 O. G. 1427. Compare Morton v. N. Y. Eye, 2 Fish. 320; Frankfort Whiskey v. Mill Creek, 37 F.
E. 533; Hake v. Brown, 37 F. E. 783; but see 44 F. E. 283; Maryland Hom- iny v. Baltimore, 46 F. E. 773; Watson v. Stevens, 51 F. E. 757. Eolling spiral- ly. Simmonds v. Hathorn, 90 F. E. 201 ; 93 F. E. 958. To regulate temperature is a new step, even if only in a new way. Combustion v. Worcester, 190 F. E. 155. The new step may be only part of an old step. Perkins Glue v. Solva, 223 F. E. 792.
48Bell v. Gray, 15 O. G. 776; Tilgh- man v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707. Com- pare Goodyear v. Dunbar, 1 Fish. 472.
49Universal Brush v. Sonn, 154 F. E. 665; U. S. Eepair v. Standard, 95 F. E. 137; United Tunnel v. Interborough, 207
F. E. 57; International Tooth v. Gay- lord, 140 U. S. 55. In re Butterfield, 108 O. G. 1589. Kintner v. Atlantic, 230 F. E. 829; National Tube v. Spang, 125 F.
E. 22; 135 F. E. 351. Thomson v. Salem, 140 F. E. 445; Johnson v. Tide- water, 50 F. E. 90. A blank of a dif- ferent shape to start with, may make a new step. Clement v. Upson, 50 F. E. 538. Mere adjustment of a well known burner is not patentable. Penna. v. Cleve- land, .150 F. E. 583.
50Conroy v. Penn., 155 F. E. 421 ; 159
F. E. 943; Farrel v. United Verde, 121 F. E. 552 ; Fried. Krupp v. Mid- vale, 191 F. E. 588; Corning v. Bur- den, 12 How. 252; Moulton v. Com. of Patents, 61 O. G. 1480; Ex parte Colton, 101 O. G. 2285; Dreyfus v. Searle, 124 U. S. 60; Marchand v. Em- ken, 132 U. S. 195; Burr v. Cowperth- waite, 4 Blatschf. 163; Eubber v. India, 35 F. E. 498; Commercial v. Fairbank, 27 F. E. 78; Eochester v. Schaefer, 46 F. E. 190. Doing in a single machine the old steps of several machines. Appleton
14
CHEMICAL PATENTS
chine instead of hand, is50 not patentable unless a different51 kind of result is obtained, and not merely62 increased or beneficial result.
A process of preserving fish which turned on the discovery of the properties of an inner skin was53 patentable, whereas a process of baling cotton which was based on a false theory54 was held unpatentable. A process of making oils or heating them in an old way till they answered to a certain flash test was held55 patentable, but on the border line of patentability.
Perhaps the clearest discussion of unsuspected properties as a test of novelty is found in the decision on the steel tempering patent which was held56 void on the theory that the alleged novelty merely consisted in carrying forward an old idea to increase an old result. It should be noted that the court held the patent 'would have been valid if the carrying forward of the patented process to a less degree would have produced a result which differed from the old result in57 nature rather than in de- gree only. Some analogous decisions will be found in connection with electrical58 patents.
v. Starr, 51 F. R. 284; 60 F. B. 411. For degree of cooling see, in re Cbase, 146 O. G. 960.
51Ex parte Champney, 60 O. G. 1051; Musgrave v. Commr. Patents, 78 O. G. 2047 ; Byerley v. Barber, 230 F. R. 995 ; 1 ee v. Upson, 42 F. R. 530; 43 F. R. 672; Tannage v. Zahn, 66 F. R. 986; 70 F. R. 1003; Vaile v. Buckeye Iron, 55 F. R. 652; National Elec. Signal v. United Wireless, 189 F. R, 727. Extin- guishing fires by carbonic charged water patentable. Graham v. Johnston (Fire Kxtinguisher Case), 21 F. R. 40. Imi- tation onyx anticipated. Arlington v. Celluloid, 97 F. R. 91. Avoiding a seam \H a new result. Burdon v. Williams, 128 F. R. 927. Rolling prismatic glass is not a new process when rolling ribbed glass is old. Daylight v. American, 142 F. R. 454. But compare Pressed Prism v. Con- tinuous, 150 F. R. 355.
52Bethlehem v. Niles, 166 F. R. 880; Lumber v. Nestor, 178 F. R.'927; East- man v. Getz, 84 F. R. 458 ; Alden v. Brown, 24 F. R. 787; U. S. v. Selma Fruit, 195 F. R. 264; Gilbert v. Watz- elham, 197 F. R. 315; Peters v. Chicago, 200 F. R, 774; General Elec. v. Butler, 205 F. R, 42; Arnold v. Pettee, 3 App. Com. Pats. 353; BurrelJ v. Elgin, 96 F. R. 234. But see U. S. Mitis v. Carnegie,
89 F. R. 343; Wrapping biscuits. Union v. Peters, 125 F. R. 603.
53Crowell v. Harlow, 1 F. R. 140. Com- pare,— utilizing the increased gravity of water holding suspended starch, to sepa- rate hulls from germs of corn. Chicago v. Charles Pope, 84 F. R. 977.
54Rembert v. American, 129 F. R. 355. Compare Cleveland v. Detroit, 131 F. R. 740. Compare Potthoff v. Hanson, 174 F. R. 983. Compare Lumber v. Nester, 178 F. R. 927. Compare Harrisburg v. N. Y., 217 F. R. 366. Compare Detmold v. Reeves, 1 Fish. 127.
55 Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating, 20 F. R, 848; 22 F. R. 252. Compare Ex parte Campbell, 14 O. G. 83.
56Bethlehem v. Niles, 166 F. R. 880. Compare Hyde v. Minerals, 214 F. R. 100; reversed 242 U. S. 261. Compare contra General Electric v. Hoskins, 224 F. R. 464. Compare Lovell v. Cary, 147 U. S. 622. See hat knitting and finishing process. Kahn v. Starrells, 131 F. R. 464; reversed 135 F. R. 532.
57Compare Allen Evaporating v. Bow- en, 24 F. R. 787. Compare Edison v. Allis, 191 F. R. 837. Minerals Separa- tion v. Hyde, 242 U. S. 261; Minerals Separation v. Miami, 237 F. R. 609.
SSWestinghouse Elec. v. Dayton, 106 F. R. 729. A method of operating mo-
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
15
In other arts it is held that builders house interior finish prepared elsewhere is not59 patentable over the ordinary finish* built in place. So using a "predetermined" quantity or properly "regulated"60 quantity is not a patentably new process so far as definition by such phrases is concerned.
While the result obtained, often is controlling61 in deciding patent- ability, a process even though producing a tangible product often is patentable though its product is not62 patentable, or apparently not new and63 vice versa. So a process may be patentable although all its steps are old if the new sequence or bringing the processes64 together produces a new or improved65 result. Omitting a step pre-
tors which depends on a hitherto unuti- lized though known principle, is patent- able and construed broadly. Westing- house v. Stanley, 133 F. R. 167 ; Tesla v. Scott, 97 F. R. 585; Dayton v. Westing- house, 188 F. R. 562; Westinghouse v. N. E. Granite, 103 F. R. 951; Westing- house v. Electric, 133 F. R. 396. But a patent to a mere electrical theory of oper- ation is void. Manhattan v. Helios Up- ton, 135 F. R. 785.
59Roehr v. Bliss, 82 F. R. 445; 98 F. R. 120.
60De Lamar v. De Lamar, 117 F. R. 240; but see dissent. Lauman v. Ur- schel, 136 F. R. 190; Burr v. Cowperth- waite, 4 Blatschf, 163; Burr v. Duryee, 1 Wall. 531. Compare Moore Filter v. Tonopah, 201 F. R. 532. Compare in re Coulton, 104 O. G. 577. But to use all the waves in wireless telegraphy was pat- entable. Nat. Elec. Sig. v. United Wire- less, 189 F. R. 727. Controlling tempera- ture, etc., makes new process. Combus- tion v. Worcester Gaslight, 190 F. R. 155. A .gentle impact, Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 F. R. 191; reversed 115 F. R. 625. But see dissent and Chisholm v. Fleming, 133 F. R. 924.
SIGuarantee v. New Haven Gaslight, 39 F. R. 268; Standard Asphalt v. American, 203 F. R. 508; Merrell v. Powdered, 222 F. R. 911; Merrell v. Natural, 222 F. R. 913; Western Glass v. Schmertz, 185 F. R. 788. Elimination of troublesome by-product. Combustion v. Worcester Gaslight, 190 F. R. 155. Better sheets of celluloid. Celluloid v. Am. Zylonite, 31 F. R. 304. Better charg- ing with carbon dioxide. Zinsser v. Kremer, 39 F. R. 111. A slight modifi-
cation of an old process is patentable if it produces a new result, where the old process was not workable on the material. Ex parte McMurray, 8 O. G. 473. But compare Ex parte Crecelius, 116 O. G. 2531; Ex parte Paterson, 116 O. G. 2533. Compare in re Welch, 125 O. G. 2767. For infringement see Herzog v. Keller, 234 F. R. 85.
62Tucker v. Sargent, 9 F. R. 299 ; Hake v. Brown, 37 F. R. 783; Schwartz v. Housman, 88 F. R. 519; R. Thomas v. Electric, 111 F. R. 923. Pressed prism v. Continuous, 150 F. R. 355; Fried. Krupp v. Midvale, 191 F. R. 588 ; Amer- ican Wood Paper v. Fiber, 23 Wall. 566.
63Cottle v. Krementz, 31 F. R. 42; Howe v. Abbott, 2 Robb. 99.
64Making silver plated iron spoons. Wal- lace v. Noyes, 13 F. R. 172. But not finishing shoe counters by molding by each of two old processes. Moffitt v. Rogers, 8 F. R. 147; 106 U. S. 423; Moffitt v. Cavanagh, 17 F. R. 336. But not if the new step is in effect the mere speeding up of an old process. High- land v. Schmertz, 178 F. R. 944. Com- pare Schmertz v, Western, 178 F. R. 973; 178 F. R. 977.
65Wilcox v. Bookwalter, 31 F. R. 224; N. Y. Grape Sugar v. Buffalo, 18 F. -R. 638 ; John R. Williams v. Miller, 107 F. R. 290 ; Warren Featherbone v. Ameri- can, 133 F. R. 303 ; German-Am, v. Loew, 155 F. R. 124; 164 F. R. 855; Edison v. Allis, 191 F. R. 837; Moore Filter v. Tonopah, 201 F. R. 532; Safety Armor- ite v. Mark, 207 F. R. 351; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620; Ex parte Perk- ins, 16 O. G. 1098; New Process v.
16
CHEMICAL PATENTS
viously thought66 necessary may be patentable. In other words each step must be considered in the light of other67 steps and not if it stood alone. Infringement likewise will be found where there is a mere68 re- arrangement of steps provided this rearrangement of steps does not de- pend on a new theory of operation.
The wording of a specification may be controlling, however, in de- termining the identity69 of processes and of analogous inventions, espe- cially electrical70 inventions. It is worth noting that very few patents have been held to be "aggregations"71 where any chemical step was as- serted to be a novel feature of the process, or the ingredients of a com- position had any chemical relation to each other. A method of book- keeping72 or advertising or doing business seems to be unpatentable, but slight "manufactures,"78 or mechanical aids to bookkeeping have been held patentable even when the utility largely depended on the fact that these aids were of mental utility.
Maus, 122 U. S. 413; Uhlman v. Arn- holdt and Schaefer Brewing Co., 53 F. B. 485; Delaware Metal Refinery v. Wood- fall, 55 F. R. 988 ; Victor 'Talking v. Am. Gramophone, 189 F. E. 359. But the steps must in some way cooperate. Gloucester Isinglass v. Le Page, 30 F. B. 370. But not if the process is obvious given the desired result. See Electrical regulation. General Elec. v. Winona, 188 F. E. 77. But see Westinghouse v. Dayton, 106 F. R. 729. Pressing and gluing or sawing to form interlocks in wood pulleys is not patentable. Dodge v. Collins, 106 F. E. 935.
66Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1; Pacific v. Bingham, 62 F. E. 281; Bul- lock v. Crocker, 141 F. R. 101; Contra Tompkins v. St. Eegis, 226 F. E. 744. But not where omitted in an analogous art. Needham v. Washburn, 7 0. G. 649. But see Smith v. Pittsburgh Gas, 42 F. E. 145.
67Moore Filter v. Tonopah, 201 F. E. 532; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620; Ex parte Katleyer, 57 O. G. 1127; Snow v. Tapley, 13 0. G. 548; Ex parte Som- mer, 58 O. G. 1255; Ex parte Eudd, 68 O. G. 535. Compare Appert v. Schmertz, 84 O. G. 508. Compare Sadtler v. Car- michael v. Smith, 86 O. G. 1498. Ex- panded Metal v. Bradford, 214 U. S. ;>66; In re Harris. 170 O. G. 484. Com- pare MacArthur v. Simplex, 230 F. B. 648; Crescent Brew. v. Gottfreid, 128
U. S. 158; Barrow v. Wetherill, Mac- Arthur, 315.
68Downs v. Teter-Heany, 150 F. R. 122. Gaunt v. United, 132 F. R. 970. Rut not if the state of the art is highly developed. Boneless v. Roberts, 12 F. R. 627. Nor if the steps are alternately mechanical and chemical. Tonopah v. Vincent, 212 F. B. 163.
69Standard Paint v. Bird, 218 F. R. 373; Hide Ite v. Fiber, 226 F. R. 34; Klein v. Russell, 19 Wall. 433.
70Thomson Houston v. Wagner, 126 F. R. 170; Weintraub v. Hewitt, 154 O. 0. 254; Kruh v. Thomas, 180 O. G. 1396. 71Ex parte Lowry, 1869 C. D. 85; Rice v. Burt, 17 O. G. 799; In re Harris, 170 O. G. 484; In re Merrill, 199 O. G. 61S; vv'ilson v. Hunter, 150 U. S. 566; U. S. Repair v. Assyrian, 100 F. R. 965 See dissenting opinion in Chicago v. Charles Pope, 84 F. E. 977. Electrical distribut- ing system held aggregation. Salem v. Thomson, 144 F. El 974. But see West- inghouse v. Allis, 176 F. B, 352.
72Berardini v. Tocci, 190 F. B. 329; Hotel v. Lorraine, 155 F. B. 298; 160 F. R. 467; Ex parte Berolzheimer, 1870 C. D. 33; Ex parte Turner, 66 O. G. 1593; Ex parte Moeser, 118 O. G. 590; 123 O. G. 655; In re Tallmadge, 174 O. G. 1219; Ex parte Dixon, Fed. Cas. 3927; Ex parte Bierce, 11 O. G. 1108. 73J0hnson v. Johnson, 60 F. R. 618.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
17
Under the United States patent laws it seems settled that merely utilizing waste material is not74 patentable unless the steps in such utilization are patentably new in themselves. Such a holding is prob- ably a development of the doctrine that it is not patentable to apply an old78 process to material analogous to that formerly used in the old process ; or use analogous materials76 on an old substance.
74Beforging worn wheels. Hansen v. Slick, 216 F. B. 164; 230 F. E. 627; In re Maule, Mac Arthur, 271.
75New Process Fermentation v. Koch, 21 F. E. 508; Gloucester Isinglass v. Le Page, 30 F. E. 370; Phillips v. Kochert, 31 F. E. 39 ; Zinsser v. Krueg- er, 48 F. E. 296 ; Bainbridge v. Kitchell, 57 F. E. 231; Union Paper Bag v. Waterburj, 58 F. E. 566; Bowman v. De Grauw, 60 F. E. 907; Fry v. Bock- wood, 90 F. E. 494; 101 F. E. 723; Gen- eral Electric v. Yost, 139 F. E. 568; Eis- enstein v. Fibiger, 160 F. E. 686; Bet- tendorf v. J. A. Little, 123 F. E. 433; Wolff v. E. I. Du Pont, 134 F. E. 863; Tompkins v. St. Eegis, 226 F. E. 744; Union Paper Collar v. Van Deusen, 23 Wall. 530; Ex parte Howell, 9 O. G. 921; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37; Hutt- ner v. Knox, 14 O. G. 118; Slade v. Blair, 17 O. G. 261; Ansonia Brass v. Electrical, 144 U. S. 11; Lovell v. Gary, 147 U. S. 623; In re Luten, 143 O. G. 1110; In re Blackmore, 145 O. G. 258; Kennedy v. Beaver, 232 F. E. 477; Wa- terman v. Thomson, 2 Fish. 461. Cut- ting wood anticipates sawing diamonds. Wood v. Kahn, 189 F. E. 400 ; 198 F. E. 403. Making rail joints. Falk v. Mis- souri, 103 F. E. 295. Water cooling a saw cutting celluloid is anticipated by ordinary water cooling tools. Celluloid v. Noyes, 25 F. E. 319. Besetting teeth in old card clothing. Brummit v. How- ard, 3 F. E. 801. But cigarette making is not analagous to fuse making, etc. Bonsack v. Elliot, 63 F. E. 835 ; 69 F. E. 335; 73 F. E. 834; nor smelting alum- inum to ordinary electrolysis. Pittsburg v. Cowles, 64 F. E. 125. But soda water is to beer. Zinsser v. Krueger, 45 F. B. 572. Leather not analogous to gelatine. Tannage v. Zahn, 70 F. E. 1003; Adams v. Tannage, 81 F. E. 178; Tannage v. Donallen, 93 F. E. 811. Polishing nuts by tumbling. Pratt v. Thompson, 83 F. E. 516. Precipitating refuse "tank water." National v. Swift, 104 F. E. 87; National v. American, 135 F. E. 809.
But treating a complex dyewood extract is patentable over treating the pure dye. Hemolin v. Harway, 138 F. E. 54. But a different problem makes the analogy disappear. National Enameling v. N. E., 139 F. E. 643. Old process of heat- ing vapor lamp, not new because now a Welsbach mantle is used. Pennsylvania v. Cleveland, 140 F. E. 348. Grinding and winnowing coffee not patentable. Baker v. Buncombe, 146 F. E. 745. Type- writing a new stencil sheet is not a new process. A. B. Dick v. Henry, 160 F. E. 690. Bleaching flour is not analogous to oil. Naylor v. Alsop, 168 F. E. 911. Soda Water analogous to beer. Golden Gate v. Newark, 130 F. E. 112. A flat sound record is not analogous to a disk one. American Gramophone v. Universal, 151 F. E. 595. Working on natural in- stead of artificial teeth. Carmichael v. Jackson, 192 F. E. 937. Treating cement is not analogous to paper making. As- bestos v. H. W. Johns, 184 F. E. 620 ; As- bestos v. Eock, 217 F. E. 66. Nor is salt to milk. Merrell v. Powdered milk, 215 F. E. 922; 222 F. E. 911; Merrell v. Natural, 222 F. E. 913. Merely soft- ening a material to fill a cavity is not patentable. North American Chemical v. Keno, 227 F. E. 63. A ear wheel is not analogous to other castings in annealing. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620. But casting a stove cover is analogous. Ex parte Little, 1869 C. D. 35. Cutting a paper collar out of sheets just the right size and in a way common to linen, not patentable. Snow v. Taylor, 14 O. G. 861. Nor to apply to a specific metal a process old to a group. Mond v. Comr. Pats., 91 O. G. 1437. Compare Busch v. Jones, 184 U. S. 599. Compare Morton v. N. Y. Eye, 2 Fish. 230. But see Poillon v. Schmidt, 3 Fish. 476.
76Electric Boot v. Little, 138 F. E. 732; Ohio Varnish v. Glidden, 215 F. B. 902; In re Chase, 135 O. G. 895; West- ern v. Ansonia, 114 U. S. 447; Miller v. Foree, 116 U. S. 22. But see Bum- ford v. Hecker, 3 O. G. 353.
18
CHEMICAL PATENTS
A process is not patentable till means have been invented capable of carrying it out, and these means must be obvious from the prior art or adequately described in the77 specification. All claims must be based on the nomenclature of the78 specification and the tests set up therein are vital. Conversely a process patent is not anticipated merely because a /device79 existed, and might have been used to carry it out, or by a machine incapable of completely80 carrying out a process, or by a de- scription unless the description is81 clear and exact enough to enable
77Downton v. Yeager Milling, 1 F. B. 199; Libbey v. Mt. Washington Glass 26 F. E. 757; Celluloid v. Eussell, 37 F. E. 676; Kennedy v. Solar, 69 F. E, 716; National Chemical v. Swift, 100 F. K. 451; Matheson v. Campell, 78 F. E. 910. The utility must be commercial or the patent will be construed narrowly. Donner v. Am. Sheet, 165 F. E. 199 ; Bal- lou v. Potter, 110 F. E. 969; Standard Paint v. Bird, 175 F. E. 346; Freid. Krupp v. Midvale, 191 F. E. 588 ; Peters v. Chicago Biscuit, 200 F. E. 774; Wood v. Underbill, 5 How. 1; Klein v. Eus- sell, 19 Wall. 433; Andrews v. Carman, 9 O. G. 1011; Kilbourne v. Bingham, 50
F. E. 697; Stevens v. Seher, 81 O. G. 1932; In re Blackmore, 140 O. G. 1209; Expanded Metal v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366; Western v. Ansonia, 114 U. S. 447; Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1; Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U. S. 683; Al- len v. Hunter, 6 McLean, 303; Detmold v. Eeeves, 1 Fish. 127; Goodyear v. Wait, 3 Fish. 242; Gold v. U. S., 3 Fish. 489. In a manufacture. A. E. Mosler v. Lurie, 200 F. B. 433. Propor- tions in a composition. Francis v. Mel- lor, 1 O. G. 48. But dies from the prior art cannot be read into the specification. Ex parte Ingersoll, 15 O. G. 389. Com- pare ex parte Barney, 53 O. G. 1569. Compare Marconi v. Shoemaker, 131 O.
G. 1939. Compare Townsend v. Thullen, 142 O. G. 1116. Compare in re Mraz, 164 O. G. 978. Compare Slingluff v. Bolin, 182 O. G. 720; 182 O. G. 975.
78Smith v. Murray, 27 F. E, 69; Chem- ical v. Eaymond, 68 F. E. 570; 71 F. E. 179; Westinghouse v. Montgomery, 153 F. E. 880; Arnold v. Phelps, 20 F. E. 315; Matheson v. Campbell, 78 F. E. 910. Tests are to be interpreted in light of common sense; stability is good test though not true if pushed to the limit. "Practically free" though still some-
what crude. Parke Davis v. II. K. Mul- ford, 189 F. B. 95.
79Clinton v. Wright, 65 F. E. 425; Loew v. German American, 164 F. B. 855; Karfiol v. Eothner, 165 F. B. 923; Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780; Bruff v. Ives, 11 O. G. 924; Carnegie v. Cam- bria, 185 U. S. 425; New Process v. Maus, 122 U. S. 412; Graham v. John- ston (Fire Extinguisher Case), 21 F. E. 40; Frankfort Whiskey v. Mill Creek, 37 F. E. 533; Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 F.
E. 374. Compare Appleton v. Ecaubert, 62 F. E. 742; 67 F. E. 917. A fabric is not anticipated by a machine which might have been used to make it. Gen- eral Knit v. Steber, 194 F. E, 99.
SOVermont Farm v. Gibson, 46 F. B. 488; Chisholm v. Fleming, 133 F. B. 924; Chisholm v. Eandolph, 135 F. B. 815; Chisholm v. Canastota, 135 F. B. 816; Uhlman v. Arnholdt and Schaefer, 53 F. B. 485. Sizing machine lacking doctor bar did not anticipate waxing process. Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, 7
F. B. 584. Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 9 F. B. 43. But the process of the machine need not have been absolutely identical to constitute anticipation, — curing fish anticipated pasteurizing beer. Model Bottling v. Anheuser Busch, 190 F. B. 573. Where a patent was for the process of using certain dies, and these were proved in prior use, the process patent is void. Gunn v. Savage, 25 F. E. 101. A storage battery element is not antici- pated by an unsuccessful device. Elec- tric Storage v. Philadelphia, 211 F. B. 15. But the discovery of the true opera- tive theory does not make an old process patentable. In re Moulton, 191 O. G. 588; and in re Chapman, 198 O. G. 240.
SICameron v. Village, 159 F. B. 453; Byerly v. Cleveland, 31 F. B. 73; Daniel Green v. Dolgeville, 210 F. B, 164; Mer-
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
19
those skilled in the art to obtain commercially the desired result. Neither is an abandoned82 experiment an anticipation. Biit a process is not patentable if its novelty resides only in using devices old in83 analogous
roll v. Powdered Milk, 215 F. K. 922; General Electric v. Hoskins, 224 F. R. 464 ; Roberts v. Dickey, 1 O. G. 4 ; Jenk- ins v. Walker, 1 O. G. 359; Muntz v. Foster, 2 Web. 93; Cahill v. Brown, 15 O. G. 697; Atlantic Giant v. Rand, 16 O. G. 87; Atlantic Giant v. Parker, 16 O. G. 495; Colgate v. Gold, 16 O. G. 583; Steward v. American Lava, 215 TT. S. 161; In re Decker, 162 O. G. 999; Downton v. Yaeger, 108 U. S. 466; By- erley v. Barber, 230 F. R. 995; Toch v. Zibell, 231 F. R. 711; 233 F. R. 993; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40 ; United Nickel v. Manhattan, 4 Ban. and A. 173 ; Ex parte Steinmetz, 224 0. G. 363; Hood v. Boston, 21 F. R. 67; Graham v. Johnston (Fire Extinguisher Case), 21 F. R. 40; Jensen v. Keasbey, 24 F. R. 144 ; Guarantee v. New Haven Gas- Light, 39 F. R. 268; Cary v. Lovell, 31 F. R. 344; Electric Accum. v. Julien, 38 F. R. 117; Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 F. R. 374; Uhlmann v. Bartholomge, 41 F. R. 132; 53 F. R. 485; German American v. Erdrich, 98 F. R. 300 ; Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 80 F. R. 122; Bowers v. San Francisco, 91 F. R. 381; Westinghouse v. Saranac, 108 F. R. 221; Dickerson v. Maurer, 108 F. R. 233; Burdon v. Wil- liams, 128 F. R. 927; Gottfried v. Cres- cent Brewing. 9 F. R. 762; reversed 13 F. R, 479; Pittsburgh Reduction Co. v. Cowles Elec. Smelt., 55 F. R. 301; Blakesley Novelty v. Connecticut Web, 78 F. R. 480. See Emerson v. Simpson Bros., 188 F. R. 808; 202 F. R. 747; German American Filter v. Loew Filter, 103 F. R. 303; Globe Nail v. U. S. Horse Nail, 19 F. R. 819; but see Globe Xail v. Superior, 27 F. R. 450. A testing apparatus does not anticipate using the apparatus for a particular purpose. Ev- erest v. Buffalo Lubricating, 20 F. R. 848. But a prior description is suffi- cient if it discloses all that the patent discloses. Sewall v. Jones, 91 U. S. 171. A patent showing the result from which it takes only mechanical skill to deduce process anticipates. Ex parte Wheeler, 4 O. G. 3. But a description may be suf- ficient in view of the state of the art. Cohen v. U. S. Corset, 93 U. S. 366. Compare Deprez v. Bernstein v. Hunter
v. Gaulard, 54 O. G. 1711. Compare Macbeth Evans v. General Elec., 231 F. R. 183. For a sufficient anticipation see Stuart v. Auger, 139 F. R. 935. But great detail is not needed. Malignani v. Jaseph Marsh, 180 F. R. 442; Ger- man American v. Loew, 103 F. R. 303. In compositions. Badische v. Kalle, 104 F. R. 802. In a composition novelty is found, if the tests indicate novelty. Maurer v. Dickerson, 113 F. R. 870. A description in a prior patent is antici- pation even if the patentee never car- ried it out. Spill v. Celluloid, 22 F. R. 94. A description of a process in a machine patent, may be complete. Model Bottling v. Anheuser Busch, 190 F. R.
573. A ''paper" patent if clear is a complete anticipation. Hyde v. Miner- als, 214 F. R. 100; but see Minerals v. Hyde, 237 F. R. 609.
82R. Thomas v. Electric, 111 F. R, 923; Maurer v. Dickerson, 113 F. R. 870; Westinghouse v. Beacon, 95 F. R. 462 ; Gloucester v. Brooks, 19 F. R. 426 ; Chadeloid v. Thurston, 220 F. R. 685; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477; Am. Wood Paper v. Fibre, 23 Wall. 566; Rob- erts v. Dickey, 1 O. G. 4; Waterman v. Thomson, 2 Fish. 461. But frequent use is not an abandoned experiment. Hent- schel v. Carthage, 169 F. R. 114.
83Fry v. Rockwood, 90 F. R. 494; Hall v. Ahrend, 110 F. R. 375; 114 F. R. 747; Young v. Burley, 200 F. R. 258; Spirella v. Nubone, 216 F. R. 898; Ex parte Lowe, 1870 C. D. 39; Vinto-n v. Hamilton, 104 U. S. 485; Ritter v. At- lanta, 234 F. R. 896; Dreyfus v. Searle, 124 IT. S. 60; Royden Marble v. Davis,
189 F. R. 622; Marchand v. Emken, 26 F. R. 629. Or using more convenient de- vices. Phillips v. Kochert, 31 F. R. 39. An anticipation need not include every minor step. Model Bottling v. Anheuser,
190 F. R. 573. Old apparatus handled in a new way does not create a new process if the theory is old. Siemund v. Endelin, 206 F. R. 283. Sand blast is not analo- gous to driving cows off track with blast of steam. Tilghman v. Morse, 1 O. G.
574. Compare Hoyt v. Home, 145 U. S. 302.
20
CHEMICAL PATENTS
steps. In other words an invention or the anticipation of an invention does not really exist till reduced to practical84 form, ncr until the utility86 of the result is realized. If, however, the process has been de facto practiced regularly, even though86 accidentally, it is anticipated. Perfect operation, however, is not necessary to give validity to a specifi- cation, though the directions must produce the desired result, but87 errors (not vital) may be ignored.
A process is not new because applied to new88 material unless the
84Gloucester Isinglass v. Brooks, 19 F. R. 426; Damon v. Eastwick, 14 F. R. 40; Gage v. Kellogg, 23 F. R. 891; Wickelraan v. A. B. Dick, 88 F. R, 264; Burdon v. Williams, 128 F. R. 927. It is not reduced to practice by an experi- ment which is unsatisfactory to the in- ventor. Atlantic Giant v. Dittmar, 1 F. R. 328. But abandonment of experiment does not prove unsuccessful results. Royer v. Chicago, 20 F. R. 853. For reduction to practice. Celluloid v. Cro- fut, 24 F. R. 796. A useless hand made anticipation does not defeat a valuable patent. Lamb v. Hamblen, 11 F. R. 722 Commercial use unnecessary. U. S. v Edison, 51 F. R. 24. Making a small quantity, but all needed, is not abandon- ment. U. S. Mineral v. Manville, 125 F. R. 770. Nor anticipated. Baker Lead v. National, 135 F. R. 546. Experi- mental character of use is negatived by nine years work producing thousands of articles. National v. Lambert, 142 F. R. 164.
85Baker Lead v. National, 135 F. R. 546; Dorian v. Guie, 25 F. R. 816; Carnegie v. Cambria, 185 U. S. 425; John v. Columbia Cotton, 179 F. R. 231; Ajax v. Brady, 155 F. R. 409; Johnson v. Chisholm, 115 F. R, 625; but see dissent, and Chisholm v. Randolph, 135 F. R. 815; Roberts v. Schreiber, 2 F. R, 855. But mere realizing the utility of the process does not maKe it patentable. Amer. Mercerizing v. Hampton, 147 F. R. 725. But seeing a new utility in an old process does not make that process patentable. Ansonia v. Electrical, 32 F. R. 81. Accidental use no anticipation. Boyd v. Cherry, 50 F. R. 279. So also a product is not patentable which is not new, though it was only occasionally pro- duced before. American v. Bridgewater, 132 F. R. 16. Compare Carborundum v. Electric, 203 F. R. 976. Compare West-
inghouse v. Montgomery, 153 F. R. 890. But compare Heroult v. Comr. of Pats., 70 O. G. 784. But see in re Kemper, MacArthur 1.
86Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U. S. 707; Warren v. Evans, 234 F. R. 657; Pitts- burgh Reduction v. Cowles Elec. Smelt., 55 F. R. 301. But see Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 189 F. R. 95; Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 F. R. 191; Roberts v. Schreiber, 2 F. R. 855; Dorian v. Guie, 25 F. R. 816; Libbey v. Mt. Washing- ton Glass, 26 F. R, 757. So also of a composition, a sidewalk experiment does not defeat later road composition. War- ren v. Owosso, 166 F. R. 309. For a com- position. Munising v. American Sulphite 228 F. R. 700. Compare Richardson v. Leidgen, 77 O. G. 153.
87Malignani v. Jasper Marsh, 180 F. R. 442; Michaelis v. Roessler, 34 F. R. 325. Describing the use of glycerine which cannot oe used is mere surplusage. McKesson v. Carnrick, 9 F. R. 44. See Matheson v. Campbell, 78 F. R. 910. Error of observation, not repudiating identity may be corrected in a division of an erroneous original. Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 189 F. R, 95. But an erroneous self -contradictory theory is fatal. Potthoff v. Hanson, 174 F. R. 983. So also is describing a utility which applies in cases where the patentable novelty is missing. Andrews v. Car- man, 9 O. G. 1011.
88Knox Rock-Blasting v. Drake, 53 F. R. 790; Blakesley Novelty v. Connec- ticut Web, 78 F. R. 480; Wood v. Kahn, 189 F. R, 400; 198 F. R. 430; Phillips v. Kochert, 31 F. R. 39; Lee v. Upson, 42 F. R. 530; 43 F. R. 670; Cel- luloid v. Russell, 37 F. R. 676; U. S. Repair v. Standard, 87 F. R. 339 ; Ballon v. Potter, 110 F. R, 969; Young v. Burley, 200 F. R. 258; Miller v. Force, 116 U. S. 22; Crescent Brew. v. Gott-
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
21
new application is revolutionary. The difficulty of applying this distinc- tion is well illustrated in the various decisions on bleaching89 pyroxlyn, though others are pertinent.
Closely allied to this question, is the question of what are equiva- lent90 elements. This problem of equivalents is extremely perplexing both in questions91 of novelty and in questions of infringement. The
fried, 128 U. S. 158; Pike v. Porter, 3 Fish. 55. Improving flow of oil wells by blasting under a water tamping, — valid. Roberts v. Schreiber, 2 F. E. 855. Process of using ivory anticipates celluloid. Cel- luloid v. Tower, 26 F. E. 451. But creat- ing a new art is revolutionary. Tannage v. Zahn, 70 F. E. 1003; Tannage v. Adams, 77 F. E. 191. Casting wrought iron is revolutionary. U. S. Mitis v. Mid- vale, 135 F. E. 103. See also National Enameling v. N. E., 139 F. E. 643. Bleaching walnuts is revolutionary. Ful- lerton v. Anderson, 166 F. E. 443. Clean- ing clay anticipates cleaning rubber. Cowen v. Boston, 214 F. E. 806. Malt is not beer. Wallerstein v. Liebmann, 215 F. E. 915. Making palatable pow- dered milk is patentably new process. Merrell v. Powdered Milk, 215 F. E. 922 ; Merrell v. Natural, 217 F. E. 578.
89Spill v. Celluloid, 2 F. E. 707; re- versed Spill v. Celluloid, 21 F. E. 631.
90Spill v. Celluloid, 2 F. E. 707; re- versed 21 F. E. 631; 22 F. E. 94; Bruff v. Ives, 11 O. G. 924; Schillinger v. Gunther, 16 O. G. 909; Ex parte Wol- tereck, 150 O. G. 1041; 151 O. G. 451; Fullerton v. Anderson, 166 F. E. 443; Western v. Schmertz, 185 F. E. 788; Goodwin v. Eastman, 213 F. E. 231; Salts Textile v. Tingue, 227 F. E. 115; Westrumite Co. v. Lincoln Park, 174 F. R. 144; Lange v. McGuin, 177 F. E. 219; Matteawan v. Emmons, 185 F. E. 814; Cleveland Target v. U. S. Pigeon, 52 F. E. 385; Byerley v. Ellis, 190 F.
E. 772; Gunn v. Savage, 25 F. E. 101; Byerley v. Standard Asphalt, 189 F. E. 759; Crown Cork v. Brooklyn, 190 F. E. 323; Ferro v. Concrete, 206 F. E, 666; Jones v. Merrill, 8 O. G. 401; Muscan Hair v. American, 1 Fish. 320; In re Braemer, 215 O. G. 323 ; Wilson v. Hunt- er, 105 U. S. 566; Mac Arthur v. Sim- plex, 230 F. E. 648; Byertey v. Barber, 230 F. E. 995 ; Zimmerman v. Advance, 232 F. E. 866; Herzog v. Keller, 234
F. E. 85; Tompkins v. St. Eegis, 236 F.
E. 221; Bump's v. Gessler, 236 F. E. 242; Commercial v. Fairbank, 133 U. S. 176; Allen v. Alter, 3 App. Com. Pats. 322; Goodyear v. Central Eailroad, 1 Fish. 626; Popenhusen v. N. Y. Gutta, 2 Fish. 80; Gottfried v. Stahlmann, 13
F. E. 673; Hammerschlag v. Wood, 18 F. E. 175; Elec. Accumulator v. N. Y., 40 F. E. 328; Smith v. Pittsburgh Gas, 42 F. E. 145; Holiday v. Pickhardt, 29 F. E. 853; Elec. Accum. v. Julien, 38
F. E. 117. Making oily sawdust with too little oil to stain, see dissenting opinion. Cotto Waxo v. Perolin, 185 F. E. 267. Etching is not the same as cut- ting. Victor Talking v. Am. Gramo- phone, 189 F. E. 359. Heating coffee with steam is not the same as heating so that the coffee produces steam. Ar- nold v. Phelps, 20 F. E. 315. Making part of keyboard with continuous strips, infringes patent for whole keyboard. Cel- luloid v. Pratt, 21 F. E. 313; overruled Celluloid v. Tower, 26 F. E. 451, which held that in such a process ivory was equivalent of celluloid. Compare Cellu- loid v. Comstock, 27 F. E. 358. Naming a maximum temperature does not limit the patent to that. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620. Methods of heating as- phalt for repair, see U. S. v. Assyrian, 183 U. S. 591. For non equivalent claims sec, ex parte Eeese, 113 O. G. 849. Compare in interference, Wood v. Duncan, 183 O.
G. 1033. Compare Wilson v. Ellis, 211 O. G. 286, and 211 O. G. 957. An im- proved old hand process does not infringe what is essentially a machine process. Hammerschlag v. Wichelmann, 38 F. E. 430. Old art determines infringement. Edison v. Klaber, 38 F. E. 744. Casting and dipping wax are equivalent, but ex- panding to fit and casting are not. Na- tional v. American, 135 F. E. 809.
91Western v. Schmertz, 185 F. E. 788. Talc may avoid a patent covering moist sand. Emerson v. Simpson, 214 F. E. 572. Using dies working differently avoids infringement. Clark v. Kennedy,
22
CHEMICAL PATENTS
whole answer often depends on the prior art, and often cannot be de- cided only on92 affidavits for preliminary injunction or demurrer. An equivalent of a substance or step is another having substantially the same93 effect, but identity of ultimate results of course does not always
11 O. G. 67. But see Peters v. Active, 130 U. S. 626; Hoff v. Iron Clad, 139 U. S. 362; Plummer v. Sargent, 120 U. S. 442; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40; Eoberts v. Roter, 5 Fish. 295; Gary v. Miller, 34 F. R. 392. " Latent Solv- ent ' ' Celluloid v. Cellbnite, 42 F. R, 90D ; Rider v. Adams, 57 F. R. 597; Tucker v. Burditt, 5 F. R. 808; Tucker v. Cor- bin, 5 F. R. 810; Taber v. Marceau, 87 -L'. R. 871; U. S. Glass v. Atlas, 88 F. R. 493; 90 F. R. 724; Michaelis v. Larkin, 91 F. R. 778. Equivalence must be proved, not left indefinite. National v. Swift, 100 F. R. 451. "Slowly turning" not construed strictly. Alvin v. Scharl- ing, 100 F. R. 87. Universal Brush v. Sonn, 146 F. R. 517; reversed 154 F. R. 665 ; Malignani v. Jasper Marsh, 180 F. R. 442. "Finishing" is more than removing surplus wax. Two ways of re- moving bubbles not equivalent. National Phono v. American, 184 F. R. 75. First broad inventor entitled to broad equiva- lents. Bowers v. Pacific, 90 F. R. 745. 92Westrumite Co. v. Lincoln Park, 174 F. R. 144 ; Lange v. McGuin, 177 F. R. 219; Electric Storage v. Belknap, 112 F. R. 538; Soc. Fabriques v. Luders, 105 F. R. 632; Chinnock v. Patterson, 112 F. R. 531; Celluloid v. Eastman, 42 F. R. 159 ; Kane v. Huggins, 44 F. R. 287 ; Lowry v. Cowles, 56 F. R. 488 ; National v. N. E., 123 F. R. 436; Thomson Hous- ton v. Wagner, 130 F. R. 902; Mattea- wan v. Emmons, 185 F. R. 814; Byerley v. Ellis, 190 F. R. 772 ; Gunn v. Savage, 25 F. R. 101; Byerley v. Standard As- phalt, 189 F. R. 759; Crown Cork v. Brooklyn, .190 F. R. 323 ; Ferro v. Con- crete, 206 F. R. 666; Jones v. Merrill, 8 O. G. 401 ; Muscan Hair v. American, 1 Fish. 320; Whippary v. United, 87 F. R. 215; Westinghouse v. Montgomery, 139 F. R. 868. So also in manufacture. Hogan v. Westmoreland, 154 F. R. 66. But contra where the patent has been ad- judicated. Warren v. Montgomery, 172 F. R. 414. But see Travers v. Hammock, 78 F. R. 638. Injunction granted on ad- judicated patent. Acme Acetylene v. Commercial, 192 F. R. 321. Also Fire-
ball v. Commercial, 198 F. R. 650. In an adjudicated patent on a composition even an equivalent ^as covered in an in- junction. Treibocher v. Wolf, 214 F. R. 414. But see Risdon v. Medart, 158 U. S. 320. Compare Chase v. Fillebrown, 58 F. R. 374. Contra for an adjudicated patent. Chadeloid v. Daxe, 180 F. R. 1004. Even when the novel step is old in many arts and simple. General Elec- tric v. Campbell, 137 F. R. 600. Injunc- tion granted on an adjudicated patent. Cleveland Target v. U. S., 52 F. R. 385.
93Kimball v. Hess, 15 F. R. 393; Adams v. Bridgewater, 26 F. R. 324; Brett v. Quintard, 17 F. R. 529; Mi- chaelis v. Roessler, 34 F. R. 325; Wels- bach v. Sunlight, 87 F. R, 221; Wels- bach v. American, 98 F. R. 613; War- ren v. Dodge, 117 F. R. 860; Schmertz v. Pittsburgh, 168 F. R. 73; Mississippi v. Pittsburgh, 168 F. R. 90. But 'blast- ing in ordinary wells did not anticipate blasting deep oil wells under a water tamping. Roberts v. Schreiber, 2 F. R. 855. Using a mechanical control of gas pressure does not infringe a chemical control patent. New Process Fermenta- tion v. Maus, 20 F. R. 725; reversed, 122 U. S. 413. A new shaped blank for welding makes different process. Clem- ent v. Upson, 50 F. R. 538. Walrath v. Pacific, 41 F. R. 883; Smelting and elec- trolysis. Lowrey v. Cowles, 68 F. R. 354; reversed, 79 F. R. 331. Leaf Tobac- co not equivalent of paper. John R. Williams v. Miller, 107 F. R. 290. But using mechanical skill to speed up an old process does not make it infringe a dif- ferent patentable one. Schmertz v. Western, 188 F. R. 436. Also Goss v. Cameron, 14 F. R. 576. The scope of equivalents depends on the prior art ; and where that is wide the scope is narrow. Holstein v. Zeeland, 211 F. R. 462; Good- win v. Eastman, 213 F. R. 231. A slight change of temperature may be patentably new. Merrell v. Powdered Milk, 215 F. R. 929. A single step process is not the same as a three-step process. Am. Wood Paper v. Fibre, 23 Wall. 566. Heating and heating over a water bath are not
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
23
prove94 identity of process.
The question of identity of invention, therefore, and of scope of claims and disclosures comes up in several forms, one interesting form, though almost impossible to draw valuable broad conclusions from, being the relation of the United States to the foreign95 patents of the same in- ventor.
Double96 patenting has been ruled on in some cases, but is still too unsettled a question to discuss briefly and broadly, aside from the inter- relation of process, product and machine. Where an inventor has both a process and an apparatus application pending, abandonment97 or restric- tion of one will not effect a patent granted on the other and the same holds true with the relation of98 foreign to U. S. patents. It is, of course, agreed that while a process invention is a different invention from a machine invention, a process patent must differ from a machine patent more than in substituting99 the word "method" for the word "means." It has been held that a machine patent may be reissued, or have claims added to it while still pending100 to cover a process, or a process patent
identical as elements in two claims of one application. Ex parte Ach, 96 O. G. 2411. But pasteurizing by moving bot- tles through pasteurizing agent is pat- entable over moving agent past bottles. In re Wagner, 105 O. G. 1783.
94National Phono v. American, 184 F. R. 75; Schmertz v. Western, 188 F. R. 436; Fried. Krupp v. Midvale, 191 F. R. 588. A patent is not infringed by a process depending on steps which the patentee sought to avoid. Tonopah v. Vincent, 212 F. R. 163.
95Brush v. Accumulator, 47 F. R, 48; Accumulator v. Julien, 57 F. R. 605; Westinghouse v. Stanley, 138 F. R. 823; Diamond v. Westinghouse, 152 F. R. 704; Commercial Acetylene v. Acme, 188
F. R. 89; Commercial Acetylene v. Searchlight, 188 F. R. 85; 197 F. R. 908; Victor v. Hoschke, 188 F. R. 326; Victor v. Sonora, 188 F. R. 330; Deprez v. Bernstein v. Hunter v. Gaulard, 54 O.
G. 1711; Appert v. Parker, 74 O. G. 1587; Bedford v. Comr. of Pats., 87 O. G. 1611; Tripler v. Linde, 101 O. G. 2288; Leeds and Catlin v. Victor, 213 U. S. 301; Cameron Septic v. Knoxville, 227 U. S. 39; Fireball v. Commercial, 239 U. S. 156; Commercial v. Fairbank, 133 U. S. 176.
96Elec. Accumulator v. Brush, 52 F. R. 130; 47 F. R. 48; Westinghouse v.
Electric, 142 F. R. 545; Victor v. Du- plex, 177 F. R. 248; Diamond v. West- inghouse, 152 F. R. 704; Mosler v. Mos- ler, 127 U. S. 354. Compare ex parte Edison, 220 O. G. 1373.
97Saunders v. Miller, 146 O. G. 505; Am. Gramophone v. Gimbel, 234 F. R. 361; Waterbury Brass v. Miller, 5 Fish. 48 ; Mica v. Commercial, 166 F. R. 440 ; Acme Acetylene v. Commercial, 192 F. R. 321. Compare Fireball v. Commercial, 239 U. S. 156. See ex parte Stuart, 113 O. G. 850. Nor will cancelling a claim for one affect the other. Bullock v. Crocker, 141 F. R. 101. But see Stearns v. Russell, 85 F. 218.
98Victor Talking v. Hoschke, 188 F. R. 328 ; Commercial Acetylene v. Search- light, 188 F. R. 85; same v. Acme Ace- tylene, 188 F. R. 89; 192 F. R. 321. Compare Fireball v. Commercial, 239 U. S. 156. But see Stearns v. Russell, 85 F. R. 218.
99In re Creveling, 117 0. G. 1167; Leeds and Catlin v. Victor, 213 U. S. 301. In re Rowe, 192 O. G. 519. Compare ex parte Edison, 220 O. G. 1373.
lOONew v. Warren, 22 O. G. 587 ; Ded- erick v. Cassell, 9 F. R. 306; Fitch v. Spang, 140 F. R. 292; Contra James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356; Contra ex parte Pfaudler, 22 O. G. 1881; Contra ex parte Lillie, 53 O. G. 2041; Compare
24
CHEMICAL PATENTS
can be101 reissued to cover a machine though the decisions are conflicting. Separate patents for an electric motor organization102 and for method of operating the motors even when apparently dependent on the appa- ratus have been held valid. It has been held that where a machine patent issues, a process103 patent covering the machine may be valid if applied for a less than two years after the machine patent issues. It has been held that a process patent cannot be reissued to cover a product and104 contra; the same holds true of reissuing105 product patents to cover processes. Analogous facts also hold true as to the adding of claims106 to pending applications. It would seem that since the Courts have had to face specific problems, they have endeavored to settle each case on its merits, irrespective of a purely philosophical view of patent law.
What is new matter or broadening of claims in a reissue107 is a
Forbes v. Thomson, 53 O. G. 2042. Com- pare contra Crane v. Meriam, 51 O. G. 1783. Compare Wing v. Anthony, 106 U. 8. 142. Contra Eachus v. Broomall, 115 U. S. 429. Contra Heald v. Kice, 104 U. S. 737. Process claims may be added to a machine application. Kirch- berger v. Am. Acetylene, 128 F. R. 599.
lOUn re Heroult, 127 O. G. 3217. Con- tra Scrivener v. Oakland Gas, 22 F. R. 98. But not if patent is void for antici- pation. Penn. Elee. v. Conroy, 185 F. R. 511; Ex parte Perkins, 55 O. G. 139; Rietzel v. Harmatta, 161 O. G. 1043. Contra Cleveland v. Detroit, 131 F. R, 740.
102Westinghouse Electric v. Dayton, 106 F. R. 724; 118 F. R. 562; Century Electric v. Westinghouse, 191 F. R. 350; Brown v. Thome, 2 O. G. 388. Compare ex parte Holt, 68 O. G. 536. But see in re Creveling, 117 O. G. 1167. Compare in re White, 136 O. G. 1771, and ex parte Edison, 220 O. G. 1373.
lOSEastern Paper Bag v. Standard, 30 F. R. 63; McKay v. Dibert, 5 F. R. 587. Compare ex parte Atwood, 44 O. G. 341. But a process application is not a con- tinuation of a machine application which contained no process claims. Model Bot- tling v. Anheuser Busch, 190 F. R. 573. An analogous situation is in Victor v. American, 140 F. R. 860. But see Meyer v. Sarfert, 96 O. G. 1037.
104Asbestos v. H. W. Johns, 189 F. R. 611; Badische Anilin v. Hamilton, 13 O. G. 273; Badische Anilin v. Higgin,
14 O. G. 414. Even in separate patents. Tucker v. Dana, 7 F. R, 213. Compare Asbestos v. H. W. Johns, 184 F. R. 620. Article patent cannot be reissued to cover process of using it. Ex parte Hicks, 16 O. G. 546.
105Valid, Asbestos Shingle v. Rock, 217 F. R. 66. Compare Ex parte Wooten, 3 O. G. 521; Goodyear v. Blake, 10 Fed. Cas. 646. Invalid, Giant Powder v. Cali- fornia Powder, 98 U. S. 126. Product re- issued for process void. Kelleher v. Darl- ing, 14 O. G. 673. Valid, Tucker v. Bur- dett, 4 Ban. and A. 569. Asbestos v. H. W. Johns, 189 F. R, 608. Invalid, Vac- uum Oil v. Buffalo, 20 F. R. 850. Valid, Providence Rubber v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. Leggett v. Standard Oil, 149 U. S. 287; Cochrane v. Badische, 111 U. S. 293.
lOGEx parte Ruckrich, 106 0. G. 765; Menden v. Curtis, 117 O. G. 1795; Rietz- el v. Harmatta, 161 O. G. 1043; Ex parte Benson, 15 O. G. 512; Ex parte Shalters, 15 0. G. 970; Dewey v. Colby, 75 O. G. 1360; Ex parte Gaylord, 117 O. G. 2366. And .a process application will be put into interference with a prod- uct one. Finley v. Chapman, 1 O. G. 277.
107Kelleher v. Darling, ]4 O. G. 673; Am. Middlings v. Atlantic, 15 O. G. 467 ; Eagleton v. West, 111 U. S. 490; Mc- Knight v. Pohle, 130 O. G. 2069; Stew- art v. Am. Lava, 215 U. S. 161; Sover- eign v. Lillie, 185 O. G. 830; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47; Eames v. And- rews, 122 U. S. 40; Gold v. U. S., 3 Fish.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
25
question which depends both on common knowledge and on special facts in the application. This kind of point of view hashed one Court to go so far as to say in the Adrenalin108 case, that they were not prepared to hold synthetic adrenalin would infringe a claim to extracted adrenalin.
A process is not infringed if any claimed step or ingredient is109 omitted and no equivalent110 substituted therefor. But avoiding the terms of the claims does not avoid111 infringement when the process is really the same. The same is true of ingredients of112 compositions. While the113 theory of the improvement need not be set forth in the patent or may be erroneously set forth, yet the true theory of opera-
489 ; Kane v. Huggins, 44 F. R. 287 ; In- ternational Terra Cotta v. Maurer, 44 F. R. 618; Casein v. A. M. Collins, 174 F. R. 341 ; General Chemical v. Blackmore, 156 F. R. 968; Francis v. Mellor, 1 O. G. 48; Carew v. Boston, 1 O. G. 91; Ex parte Wooten, 3 O. G. 521; Ex parte Hermann, 10 O. G. 856; Russell v. Dodge, 93 U. S. 460; Jones v. McMur- ray, 13 O. G. 6; Atlantic Giant v. Good- year, 13 O. G. 45; Wonson v. Peterson, 13 0. G. 548; Kelleher v. Darling, 14 O. G. 673; Atlantic Giant v. Rand, 16 O. G. 87 ; St. Louis Stamping v. Quinby, 16 O. G. 135. Compare Neill v. Comr. Pats., 82 O. G. 749. Compare ex parte Welch, 93 O. G. 2105. Compare in re Blackmore, 140 O. G. 1209. Compare Slingluff v. Bolin, 182 O. G. 720; 182 O. G. 975.
lOSParke Davis v. Mulford, 196 F. R. 496.
109Hudson v. Draper, 4 Fish. 256; Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 10 F. R. 479; Cotter v. New Haven Copper, 13 F. R. 234; Royer v. Schultz, 40 F. R. 158; Sun Vapor v. Western, 41 F. R. 43; Kennedy v. Solar, 69 F. R. 716; Amer- ican Fibre Chamois v. Port Huron, 72 F. R. 516; Eastman v. Getz, 77 F. R. 412; Cerealine v. Bates, 77 F. R. 883; Heller v. Bauer, 19 F. R. 96; Matthews v. Iron Clad, 21 F. R. 641; Globe Nail v. Su- perior, 27 F. R. 450; Commos v. Somers, 49 F. R, 920. But omitting part of a step does not avoid infringement. Hoff v. Iron Clad, 27 F. R. 307; 139 U. S. 362. So, if the specification makes a pump essential one who avoids a pump fails to infringe. Philadelphia v. Davis, 79 F. R. 357. In interferences compare
Rosell v. Allen, 92 O. G. 1036. See also note 24.
HOPitching barrels by superheated steam does not infringe pitching by burnt air. Gottfried v. Conrad Seipp Brew., 8 F. R. 322; see 128 U. S. 158.
UlAcme v. American, 206 F. R. 478; United Nickel v. Keith, 5 O. G. 272; Wetherill v. N. J. Zinc, 5 O. G. 460; Burr v. Prentiss, 4 Fed. Gas. 821.
H2Otley v. Watkins, 36 F. R. 323; Lane v. Levi, 104 O. G. 1898. See also note 24.
113National Enameling v. N. E., 139 F. R. 643; Malignani v. Jasper Marsh, 180 F. R. 442; Century Electric v. West- inghouse, 191 F. R. 350; Merrell v. Na- tural, 217 F. R. 578; Philadelphia Rub- ber v. U. S., 229 F. R. 150, but see Phil- adelphia Rubber v. Portage, 227 F. R. 623; Ex parte Mayall, 4 O. G. 582; Warren v. Evans, 234 F. R, 657; Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40 ; Cahill v. Beck- ford, Holmes 48 ; Minerals Separation v. Miami, 237 F. R. 609; Western Mineral v. Globe, 125 F. R. 770. But when sole novelty lies in the theory in the particu- lar art, failure to set it forth may neg- ative novelty. Steiner Fire Extinguisher v. City of Adrian, 52 F. R. 731. Com- pare Siebert Cyl. Oil Cup v. Harper Steam Lub., 4 F. R. 328; and ex parte Seibert, 16 0. G. 262. Erroneous, U. S. Mitis v. Midvale, 135 F. R. 103. But a patent to a mere theory of operation is void. Manhattan v. Helios Upton, 135 F. R. 785. If the description is suffi- cient to enable the process to be worked, the theory is immaterial. Combustion v. Worcester, 190 F. R. 155.
26
CHEMICAL PATENTS
tion will be controlling in deciding questions of both114 novelty and in- fringement115 especially where the empirical steps116 are old in similar
114Hammerschlag v. Judd, 28 F. E. 621; N. Y. Filter v. Niagara, 77 F. E. 900; 80 F. E. 924; N. Y. Filter v. El- mira, 83 F. E. 1013; Kirchberger v. Am. Acetelyne, 128 F. E. 599 ; Baker Lead v. National, 135 F. E. 546; Chisholm v. Canastota, 135 F. E. 816; Mica v. Com- mercial, 166 F. E. 440; Fullerton v. An- derson, 166 F. E. 443; Westinghouse v. Toledo, 172 F. E. 371; Casein v. A. M. Collins, 174 F. E. 341 ; Victor v. Duplex, 177 F. E. 248; Combustion Utilities v. Worcester Gaslight, 190 F. E. 155; Ger- man American Filter v. Loew Filter, 103 F. E. 303; Adams and Westlake v. Wil- son, 21 F. E. 648; Gary v. Wolf, 24 F.
E, 139; Tucker v. Tucker, 10 O. G. 464; Dunkley v. Beekhuis, 190 O. G. 267; In re Moulton, 191 O. G. 588; Graphic Arts v. Photo, 231 F. E. 146; Dolbear v. Am. Telephone, 126 U. S. 1; Lalance and Grosjean v. Habermann, 53 F. E. 375; 55 F. E, 292; Westinghouse v. Sutter, 202 F. E. 759 ; Electric Storage v. Gould, 204 F. E, 280. Wallerstein v. Liebmann, 215 F. E. 915; Harrisburgh v. N. Y., 217 jv. H. 366; Thomson Elec. Welding v. Barney, 227 F. E. 428. Waxing paper by moving coating roll and paper at dif- ferent speeds, not anticipated by machine to size paper. Hammerschlag v. Scamoni, 7 F. E. 584; Hammerschlag v. Garrett, 9 F. E. 43. Burning wet fuels. Brown v. Thome, 2 O. G. 388. Compare Schup- phaus v. E. I. Du Pont, 204 F. E. 624. Even where the empirical steps are appa- rently old. Celluloid v. American Zylo- nite, 26 F. E. 692; 28 F. E. 195. Man- ufacture of aluminum. Pittsburg Re- duction v. Cowles, 55 F. E. 301; 64 F. It. 125. But a patent based on a wrong theory cannot be reissued to claim the right theory. Seibert Cylinder Oil Cup v. Harper, 4 F. E. 328; Marconi v. De Forest, 236 F. E. 942; Electric v. Car- borundum, 102 F. E. 618; American Stove v. Cleveland, 158 F. E. 978. The mere formulation of a theory does not make it patentable. Century Elec. v. Wagner, 192 F. E. 564.
USAmerican Stove v. Cleveland, 158
F. E. 978; Schmertz v. Western, 195 F. E. 760; Electric Storage v. Gould, 204 F. E. 280; Harrisburgh v. N. Y., 217 F. E. 366; Hide Tte v. Fibre, 226 F. E. 34; Merrill v. Yoemans, 5 O. G.
268; Jones v. Merrill, 8 O. G. 401; Tucker v. Tucker, 10 O. G. 464; United Nickel v. Manhattan, 4 Ban. and A. 173 ; Electric v. Carborundum, 102 F. E. 618; Westinghouse v. Montgomery, 153 F. E. 880; compare Westinghouse v. Saranac, 113 F. E. 884; compare Westinghouse v. Stanley, 117 F. E. 309; compare West- inghouse v. Orange, 119 F. E. 366. See the limits of composition allowable, Don- aldson v. Marbolith, 173 F. E. 88. Ig- norance of reactions is no defense. Gen- eral Bakelite v. Nikolas, 225 F. R. 539; Crown Cork v. Brooklyn Bottle Stopper, 190 F. E. 323; Combustion Utilities v. Worcester Gaslight, 190 F. E. 155; Gary v. Wolff, 24 F. E. 139; Gottfried v. Con- rad Seipp Brew., 8 F. E. 322; reversed 128 U. S. 158; New Process 'Fermenta- tion v. Baltz, 10 F. E. 289; Consol. Bunging v. Peter, 28 F. E. 287; .Jack son v. Birmingham, 72 F. E. 269; 79 F. E. 801; Binder v. Atlanta, 73 F. E. 480; United Indurated v. Whippany, 83 F. E. 485; reversed 87 F. E, 251; West- inghouse v. Roberts, 125 F. E. 6; Kirch- berger v. Am. Acetylene, 128 F. R. 599 ; Georgia v. Bilfinger, 129 F. R. 131; Baker Lead v. National, 135 F. R. 546; National v. American, 135 F. R. 809 ; Fitch v. Spang, 140 F. E. 292; Downes v. Teter-Heany, 150 F. E. 122; Blair v. Jeanette, 161 F. R. 355; Union Carbide v. American, 172 F. R. 136; 181 F. R. Ill; Potthoff v. Hanson, 174 F. R. 983; Victor v. Duplex, 177 F. R. 248. Improv- ing an old process by speeding it up may avoid infringement where the theory of operation is different, though the im- proved old process practically follows the terms of the patent. Schmertz v. West- ern Glass, 188 F. R. 436. Compare Tucker v. Sargent, 9 F. R. 299. Cold rolling seams in a metal pipe does not infringe a patent based on hot rolling. Root v. Lamb, 7 F. R. 222. Compare Celluloid v. Arlington, 52 F. R. 740.
llOCary v. Wolff, 24 F. R. 139; Gary v. Lovell, 24 F. R. 141; 31 F. R. 344'; Wickwire v. Wire, 41 F. R. 37; Electric Smelting v. Carborundum, 83 F. E. 492; Schlicht v. Aeolipyle, 117 F. E, 299; Eembert v. American, 129 F. R. 355; U. S. Repair v. Standard, 95 F. E. 137; Gilbert v. Watzelhan, 197 F. E. 315.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
27
arts or processes. The claims, however, must be read in the light of the117 specification. Adding a new step does not avoid infringement if the118 theory remains the same. Especially must reliance be placed on the theory of operation in questions of119 infringement of process parents where other tests are difficult to apply, as where the defendants120 fail to completely disclose their process. The same considerations apply conversely among others when the question of121 contributory or di- rect122 infringement of process patent is raised by the selling of a ma- chine or manufacture123 or composition or apparatus usable for the process. Infringement also may be charged though the infringement was possibly124 accidental in details, if those details contributed to the result. Infringement also is found where goods partly processed when purchased are completed125 according to a patented process.
117Corn Products v. Douglas, 207 F. B. 571; Carnegie v. Cambria, 185 U. S. 425; Moore Filter v. Tonopah, 201 F. B. 532.
HSLalance and Grosjean v. Haber- mann, 53 F. R. 380; 55 F. B. 292; Thom- son Houston v. Dayton, 137 F. B. 917; Ford v. Tannage, 84 F. B. 644 ; Clerk v. Tannage, 84 F. B. 643 ; Electric v. Pitts- burgh, 125 F. B. 926; National Enamel- ing v. N. E., 139 F. B. 643 ; General Elec- tric v. Morgan, 159 F. B. 951. Such as heating by an electric current, instead of external heat. Pittsburgh Beduction v. Cowles Elec. Smelt., 55 F. B. 301. N. Y. v. Elmira, 82 F. B. 459. So broad claims may cover another process where the theory is partly the same. Electric v. Car- borundum, 102 F. B. 618.
119Goldie v. Diamond, 64 F. B. 237; Cary v. De Haven, 88 F. B, 698; Blair v. Jeanette, 361 F. B. 355; Hyde v. Minerals (U. S.), 234 O. G. 1311; Ac- cumulator C. v. Consolidated Elec. Stor- age, 53 F. B. 793; Delaware Metal Be- fining v. Woodfall, 55 F. B. 988; Globe Nail v. U. S. Horse Nail, 19 F. B. 819; Celluloid v. Arlington, 44 F. B. 81; Mi- chaelis v. Boessler, 38 F. B. 724. And people who have long claimed to use a process need not disclose it to a recent patentee. Stokes v. Heller, 56 F. B. 297. But the mere identity of product will not throw burden on defendant. Schwartz v. Housman, 88 F. B. 519. A change of temperature in making starch may in- volve a new theory. Corn Products v. Douglas, 207 F. B.' 751.
120U. S. Frumentum v. Lauhoff, 216 F. B, 610.
121German American Filter v. Loew, 103 F. B. 303; Johnson v. Foos, 141 F. B. 73. Not where probable use was for other system. General Elec. v. Sutter, 186 F. B. 637. Bepairing, Goodyear v. Preterre, 14 O. G. 346.
122Westinghouse Elec. v. Dayton, 106
F. B. 724. In a product (tempered saw). Thompson v. Bushnell, 96 F. B. 238; German American v. Loew, 103 F. B. 303.
123Alabastine v. Payne, 27 F. B. 559; Boyd v. Cherry, 50 F. B. 279; Vermont v. Gibson, 56 F. B. 143; N. Y. Filter v. Jackson, 91 F. B. 422; Loew v. German American, 107 F. B. 949; Bumford v. Hygienic, 159 F. B. 436; Bumford v. Hecker, 10 O. G. 289; Bowker v. Dows, 15 O. G. 510; Leeds and Catlin v. Vic- tor, 213 U. S. 318; Westinghouse v. Wagner, 225 U. S. 604 ; Wood v.. Cleve- land, 4 Fish. 550. But are limited by the scope of the invention. Geis v. Kimber, 36 F. B. 105. But not necessarily so. Bullock v. Westinghouse, 129 F. B. 105. Compare Bumford v. Hecker, 3 O.
G. 353.
124Roberts v. Schretber, 2 F. B. 855.
125Celluloid v. American Zylonite, 30 F. B. 437; 35 F. B. 417; Perkins Glue v. Solva, 223 F. B. 792; Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 F. B. 191; reversed 115 F. B. 625. But see dissent, and Chisholm v. Fleming, 133 F. B. 924. So, too, fin- ishing a well by a patented process, in- fringes a patent on the well process it- self. Andrews v. Eames, 15 F. B. 106.
28
CHEMICAL PATENTS
Infringement damages are computed both on the basis of profits126 to the infringer and127 damage to the patentee, but only cover the product of128 the patented process. The using or vending of a composi- tion of matter infringes129 a patent for it, and where an article is made wholly of patented composition130 the damages are the entire profits.
In interferences the questions are much the same as in infringe- ment and novelty, both as to steps and ingredients added or omitted, But the proof of the infringement, anticipation, and laches, etc., in con- nection with something intangible, like a process131 is often somewhat
Making part of a key board with continu- ous covering infringes claim to whole keyboard. Celluloid Co. v. Pratt, 21 F. B. 313 ; overruled on novelty, Celluloid v. Tower, 26 F. R. 451. But compare Celluloid v. Comstock, 23 F. B. 38. Buy- ing commercial pure nickel, instead puri- fying its solution does not avoid a patent requiring a pure article. United Nickel v. California, 25 F. B. 475. But see Boneless v. Roberts, 12 F. R. 627.
126Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating, 31 F. R. 742; Celluloid v. Cellonite, 40 F. R. 476; Am Ende v. Seabury, 43 F. R. 672; Diamond v. Brown, 166 F. R. 306; Hemolin v. Harway, 166 F. R. 434; Ful- lerton v. Anderson, 166 F. R. 443; Pressed Prism v. Continuous, 181 F. R. 151; Fox v. Knickerbocker, 158 F. R. 422; Byerly v. Cleveland, 31 F. R. 73; Schmertz v. Western, 203 F. R. 1006; U. S. Frumentum v. Lauhoff, 216 F. R, 610; Continuous v. Schmertz, 219 F. R. 199 ; Cambria v. Carnegie, 224 F. R. 947 ; Western v. Schmertz, 226 F. R. 730; Byerly v. Sun, 226 F. R. 759; Munising v. American Sulphite, 228 F. R. 700; Providence Rubber v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788; 'Piper v. Brown, 2 O. G. 97; Am. Nicholson Paving v. Elizabeth, 6 O. G. 746; Black v. Thome, 7 O. G. 176; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136 ; Hurl- burt v. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456.
127United Nickel v. Central Pacific, 36 F. R. 186; Fox v. Knickerbocker, 165 F. R. 442; Carew v. Boston, 1 O. G. 91; Goodyear v. Antwerp, 9 O. G. 497. Com- pare Schillinger v. Gunther, 14 O. G. 713; Wetherill v. N. J., 1 Ban. and A. 485.
128Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620; Lawther v. Hamilton, 64 F. R. 221. Com- pare Royer v. Shultz, 45 F. R. 51.
129Kiesele v. Haas, 32 F. R. 794.
ISOWelling v. Le Bau, 34 F. R. 40;
Codington v. Propfe, 112 F. R. 1016. Compare Carborundum v. Electric, 203 F. R. 976.
ISlPhiladelphia Rubber v. U. S., 229 F. R. 150 ; American Featherbone v. Warren, 141 F. R. 655; Petrie v. De Schweinitz, 99 O. G. 446; Tripler v. Linde, 101 O. G. 2288; Flora v. Powrie, 106 O. G. 2288; 109 O. G. 2443; Talbot v. Monell, 107 O. G. 1093; McKnight v. Pohle, 105 O. G. 977; Marconi v. Shoe- maker, 131 O. G. 1939; Boynton v. Tag- gart, 190 O. G. 795; General Electric v. Steinberger, 214 F. R. 781; Bender v. Engel, 211 O. G. 285; Manning v. Cape Ann, 108 U. S. 462; Toch v. Zibell, 231 F. R. 711; 233 F. R. 933; Tompkins v. St. Regis, 236 F. R. 221; Bene v. Jean- tet, 129 U. S. 683 ; Allen v. Alter, 3 App. Comr. Pats. 322; Bridge v. Brown, Holmes 53; Collins v. White, 3 App. Com. Pats., 329; Gutta Percha v. Good- year, 3 Ban. and A. 212; Jones v. Weth- erill, MacArthur 409; Hudson v. Draper, 4 Fish. 256; National v. Arctic Oil, 4 Fish. 514; Ready v. Taylor, 3 Ban. and A. 368; Rich v. Lippincott, 2 Fish. 1; Sickles v. Falls, 2 Fish. 202; Treadwell v. Fox, 3 App. Comr. Pats., 201; General Elec. v. Germania, 174 F. R. 1017; Co- dington v. Propfe, 112 F. R, 1016; Maurer v. Dickerson, 113 F. R. 870; Welsbach v. American, 98 F. R. 613; Westinghouse v. Sutter, 194 F. R. 888; 202 F. B. 759; Emerson v. Simpson, 202 F. B. 747; Crowell v. Sim, 1870. C. D. 72; Riley v. Bauman, 1871 C. D. 101; Spencer v. Trafford, 1871 C. D. 119; Worley v. Loker, 104 U. S. 340; Doyle v. McRoberts, 79 O. G. 1029; Handy Things v. Dorsey, 188 F. R. 70; La^ lance and Grosjean v. Habermann, 53 F. R. 375; Imperial v. Stein, 77 F. R, 612. So is notice by marking different.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
29
different from proof of an infringement of an article or a machine. Moreover interference in fact is not132 proved by ability to copy claims. There is no interference where the claims of133 one party include an im- portant step not in the claims of the other, or a134 product not made by him. The prior inventor of a process is held prior135 inventor of its product. The question of inventorship, as between a suggester and a reducer136 to practice, is often exceedingly narrow. Reduction to prac- tice must be complete and137 successful and work continuous. The ques-
U. S. Mitis v. Carnegie, 89 F. E. 206. Compare General Electric v. McLaren, 140 F. E. 876. Also Henschel v. Carth- age, 169 F. E. 114. Compare Haarmann De v. Van Dyk, 165 F. E. 934. Com- pare United Nickel v. Manhattan Brass, 4 Ban. and A. 173. Analogously it is im- possible to mark the ' ' article patented. ' ' U. S. Mitis v. Midvale, 89 F. E. 206; 135 F. E, 303. Compare A. B. Dick v. Underwood, 235 F. E. 300. In a machine see Lewis v. Cronemeyer, 130 0. G. 300. Compare Mark v. Greenawalt, 138 O. G. 965; 140 O. G. 509. Compare Whitman v. King, 160 O. G. 260. Compare Mc- Berty v. Cook, 90 O. G. 2295; Locke v. Boch, 93 O. G. 1722. Compare experts in interference cases. Stone v. Pupin, 100 O. G. 1113. Compare Chaff ee v. Boston Belting, 22 How. 217. For an- ticipation see Young v. Burley, 200 F.
E. 258 ; and Emerson v. Simpson, 202
F. E. 747. For evidence negativing iden- tity. Standard v. American, 203 F. E. 508. Compare Macbeth Evans v. General Electric, 231 F. E. 183. In Minerals Separation v. Miami, 237 F. E, 609, the Court (not in the printed decision) ruled that it would receive as evidence enlarged micro-photograph moving pictures show- ing comparative phenomena of liquids act- ing on solids, even though it was neces- sary to adjourn the court to a moving pic- ture theater, and there to view the pic- tures.
132Bissel v. Eobert, 51 O. G. 1618.
133Wickers v. Albert, 129 O. G. 1268; Wickers v. Upham, 129 O. G. 1612 ; Sad- tier v. Carmichael v. Smith, 86 O. G. 1498; Bullier v. Willson, 87 O. G. 180. Compare Eosell v. Allen, 92 O. G. 1036. But see Wickers v. McKee, 129 O. G. 869; 129 0. G. 1269 and 1270.
134Calm v. Schweinitz v. Dolley v. Gcisler, 86 O. G. 1633.
135Compare Universal v. Willimantic, 82 F. E. 228. Compare Mica v. Com- mercial, 157 F. E. 90.
l36Braunstein v. Holmes, 130 O. G. 2371; Braunstein v. Holmes, 133 O. G. 1937; Ladoff v. Demster, 166 O. G. 511; Moody v. Colby, 198 O. G. 899 ; Eiley v. Barnard, 59 O. G. 1919; Flather v. Weber, 104 0. G. 312; French v. Hoi- comb, 115 O. G. 506; 120 O. G. 1824. Compare Corner v. Kyle, 114 O. G. 2092. Compare Hewlett v. Steinberger, 190 O. G. 270. But see General Electric v. Steinberger, 214 F. E. 781.
137Eeed v. Eoberts, 1869 C. D. 88; En- gineer v. Hotel, 226 F. E. 779 ; 226 F. E. 949; McCracken v. Russell, 1869 C. D. 35; Kirchner v. Blair, 13 O. G. 364; Sawyer v. Edison, 25 O. G. 597; Beach v. Fowler, 48 O. G. 821; Zwietusch v. Stockheim, 53 0. G. 755; Croskey v. At- terbury, 76 O. G. 163; Appert v. fcchmertz, 84 O. G. 508; Tripler v. Linde, 101 O. G. 2288; 102 O. G. 1297; Kyle v. Corner, 113 O. G. 2216; Wickers v. McKee, 129 O. G. 869; Wickers v. Upham, 129 O. G. 1612; Sherwood v. Drewson, 130 O. G. 657; Sydeman v. Thoma, 141 O. G. 866 ; Whitman v. King, 160 O. G. 259 ; Potter v. Tone, 163 O. G. 729; Sanders v. Emerson, 174 O. G. 1220; Bridge v. Brown, Holmes 53; Jones v. Wetherill, MacArthur, 409 ; Na- tional v. Artie Oil, 4 Fish. 514; Union v. Lounsbury, 2 F. E. 389; Butcher v. Jackson, 225 O. G. 738 ; Creveling v. Jep- son, 226 O. G. 336; Becker v. Bird, 228 O. G. 407; Braun v. Wahl, 228 O. G. 1458; Janin v. Curtis, 231 O. G. 1539; Atlantic Giant Powder v. Dittmar, 1 F. E. 328 ; Celluloid v. Crofut, 24 F. E. 796. But occasional failure does not negative successful practice. Appert v. Browns- ville, 144 F. E. 115. Compare Pope v. McKenzie, 176 O. G. 1072. Compare
30
CHEMICAL PATENTS
tion as to whether an experiment138 in a laboratory has the standing of a model or of a working machine in mechanical patents appears to depend on special circumstances, but a139 caveat was a reduction to a practice if full and complete.
The important question of140 licenses has comparatively rarely come up, in connection with decisions on process or composition patents, ex- cept on questions which are broader than the scope of this essay. As in the case with mechanical patents, the licensee often gets more privi- leges than the face of the license seems to call for, because the licensor141 is presumed to give something of real value. The licensee of a process is owner142 of the product and can do what he likes with it, but ownership of a patented machine is no143 license to use it or to buy others to use in a patented process.
The construction of claims144 is strictly limited to what they cover. A single claim cannot cover both a process145 and machine or
Weintraub v. Hewitt, 178 O. G. 889 ; 180 O. G. 882; Lederer v. Walker, 182 O. G. oil. Compare Barcley v. Schuler, 199 O. G. 309. See Dolbear v. Am. Tele- phone, 126 U. S. 1.
But a fire extinguisher need not put out a very large fire. Northwestern v. Phil- adelphia, 6 O. G. 34. The proof of in- gredients must be complete. Leighton v. Barker, 14 O. G. 199. Compare Buell v. Shaefer, 71 O. G. 1453. Compare Wurts v. Harrington, 79 O. G. 337. In case of a product must involve use thereof. Silv- erman v. Hendrickson, 99 O. G. 445. Com- pare Daggett v. Kaufman, 145 O. G. 1024. Compare Miller v. Speller, 165 O. G. 732. Compare Ruping v. Lowry, 168 O. G. 1037.
138United Nickel v. California, 25 F. R. 475; Blumenthal v. Burrell, 43 F. R, 667; Michaelis v. Larkin, 91 F. R. 778; Naylor v. Alsop, 168 F. R. 911; Ex parte Carre", 4 O. G. 180; Cheese- borough v. Toppan, 1872 C. D. 100. In medicine an experiment published, but of which product was never used, is an an- ticipation. Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 189 F. R. 95. But public experiment on a lamp does not anticipate a process pri- marily for furnaces, etc. Schlicht v. Aeoli- pyle, 117 F. R. 299. Compare Union Car- bide v. American, 172 F. R. 136; 188 F. R. 334. Compare Stevens v. Sehr, 81 O. G. 1932. Compare Franklin v. Morton v. Cooley, 95 O. G. 2063. Compare Sling- luff v. Sweet, 230 O. G. 659.
139Colhoun v. Hodgson, 70 O. G. 276; Gold v. U. S., 3 Fish. 489.
HOLibby v. McKee, 216 F. R. 172; Providence Rubber v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. Implied license construed. Barber v. National, 129 F. R. 370. Compare Amer. Gramophone v. Leeds, 155 F. R. 427. Compare N. Y. Phonograph v. Na- tional, 163 F. R, 534. See Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1.
HlCompare Am. Gramophone v. Vic- tor, 183 F. R, 580; Buffalo Specialty v. Indiana, 234 F. R. 334; Day v. Stell- man, 1 Fish. 487; Goodyear v. Beverley,
1 Cliff. 348; Goodyear v. Cary, 1 Fish. 424.
142Goodyear v. Beverley, 1 Cliff. 348. Compare Metropolitan Washing v. Earlc,
2 Fish. 203.
143Vermont Farm v. Gibson, 46 F. R. 488; 50 F. R. 423.
144Keifer v. Unionwerke, 231 F. R. 733; Zan v. Quong, 47 F. R. 901; Sun Vapor v. Western, 48 F. R. 682. The specification cannot be read into a claim which is clearly met. Bracewell v. Pas- saic, 107 F. R. 467.
145Consol. Bunging v. Brewing, 35 F. R. 73; Ex parte Bate, 16 O. G. 266. But though worded as a process, it may be construed as a broad claim to a ma- chine. Spencer v. Penna. R. Co., 34 F. R. 899. Compare American Mfg. v. Lane, 15 O. G. 421. But see, Dolbear v. Am. Telephone, 126 U. S. 1.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
31
product.146 Claims to chemical inventions are not so strictly147 limited in form as those to mechanical inventions since the absence of substances can148 constitute invention and be149 claimed. The claims must not, how- ever, be limited to a mere150 result. A process claim must not be to the161 mere "use" of a thing or ingredient. Amendments to claims are, how- ever, just as binding152 as in machine applications.
Owing to the point of view of the U. S. Courts and U. S. Patent Office there is a natural tendency to require inventors to define prod- ucts153 independently of the process by which they are made, and154 processes independently of products. This leads to some unfortunate results and is155 often abandoned owing to the fact that patents often turn on empirical chemistry156 and mechanics, so the claims must be formulated before theoretical chemistry and mechanics can supply ade- quate definitions. It seems likely that less pressure will be used in the future in limiting claims in this way.
It is unfortunately apparently necessary to insist that the inventions in process and product patents must be167 definably new and be claimed
146Van Camp v. Maryland Pavement, 34 F. E. 740; American v. Empire, 50 F. B. 929; Durand v. Green, 60 F. E. 329; Durand v. Schultze, 61 F. E. 819; Ferris v. Batcheller, 70 F. E. 714; Wels- bach v. Incandescent, 101 F. E. 131; Mer- rill v. Yoemans, 5 O. G. 268; 94 U. S. 568; Welling v. Eubber Coated, 7 O. G. 608; Collender v. Bailey, 13 O. G. 277; Ex parte Du Motay, 16 O. G. 499 ; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349; Many v. Sizer, 1 Fish. 28. But see Celluloid v. Fred- erick Crane, 36 F. E, 110.
147A claim to a group of named solv- ents is valid* Celluloid v. Frederick Crane, 36 F. E. 110.
USEumford v. N. Y., 134 F. E. 385; Tarr v. Folsom, 5 O. G. 92; Byam v. Farr, 1 Curt. 260. In a process. Law- ther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1.
149Eumford v. N. Y., 134 F. E. 358; McCormick Waterproof v. Medusa, 222 F. E. 288; Byam v. Farr, 1 Curt. 260. Or nearly free from. Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 189 F. E. 95 ; 196 F. E. 499 ; United Nickel v. Pendleton, 15 F. E. 739 ; same v. Anthes, 1 O. G. 578 ; same v. Keith, 5 O. G. 272; same v. Harris, 17 0. G. 325; same v. Manhattan Brass, 4 Ban. and A. 173; same v. Central Pa- cific, 36 F. E. 186. Storage battery ele- ment. Electric Storage v. Philadelphia, 211 F. E. 154.
ISOBailey v. Lincoln, 4 Fish. 379.
151Ex parte Mayall, 4 O. G. 210. Com- pare Foote v. Silsby, 2 Blatschf. 260.
152Eoyer v. Coupe, 146 U. S. 524.
153Ex parte Truesdell, 1870 C. D. 123 ; Ex parte Selbers, 2 O. G. 246; Ex parte Arkell, 11 O. G. 1111; Ex parte Des- ignole, 13 O. G. 227; Ex parte Eogers, 52 O. G. 460; Eisdon v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68; Ex parte Scheckner, 106 O. G. 765; In re Eoselius, 162 O. G. 272. In re Pratt, 224 O. G. 1407. Contra, ex parte Painter, 57 O. G. 999.
154Ex parte Crecelius, 116 O. G. 2531.
155Brush Electric v. Julien, 41 F. E. 679; Ex parte Mayall, 4 O. G. 210; Ditt- mar v. Eix, 1 F. E. 342; Globe Nail v. U. S. Horse Nail, 19 F. E. 819; Pick- hardt v. Packard, 22 F. E. 530; Lock- wood v. Hooper, 25 F. E. 910, and cita- tions therein. Especially when identify- ing tests are partially relied on. Holiday v. Pickhardt, 29 F. E. 853.
156Electric Accumulator v. Brush, 52 F. E. 130.
157Tannage v. Zahn, 66 F. E. 986; re- versed 70 F. E. 1003; Cerealine v. Bates, 101 F. E. 272; Sanitas v. Voigt, 139 F. E. 551; Am. Wood Paper v. Fibre, 23 Wall. 566; Smith v. Elliott, 1 O. G. 331; In re Henry, Mac Arthur 467; In re Bond, 222 O. G. 1057; Barrett v. Ewing, 228 O. G. 761. But see Eeed v. Street, 34 O. G. 339.
32
CHEMICAL PATENTS
by such definitions158 even though the reasons for selecting a given defini- tion are not wholly clear. A manufacture or product thereof is not159 patentable because made by a better machine, or better process.
A coating has been held properly patentable160 as such. A product is sufficiently defined161 if claimed as ' ' coated substantially as described ' ' or having the "herein described characteristics." A product may be patentable because of its162 utility even if merely purer or in more163 useful form than the prior art shows. Similar facts are true of manufac- tures.164 A product patent will cover165 equivalents even though not166 isolated if they are known or identified,167 but if claimed as the product of a given process are not infringed if made by a substantially dif-
158Jones v. McMurry, 13 O. G. 16.
159McKloskey v. Du'bois, 8 F. R. 710; Excelsior v. Union Needle, 32 F. R. 221 ; Ex parte Selbers, 2 O. G. 246 ; Draper v. Hudson, 3 O. G. 354; Ex parte Hibbard, 4 O. G. 54; Risdon v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68. Even if somewhat better. Wooster v. Calhoon, 6 Fish. 514.
IBOUnited Nickel v. California, 25 F. R. 475; Same v. Central Pacific, 36 F. R. 186. Same v. Pendleton, 15 F. R. 739 ; same v. Melchior, 17 F. R. 340; same v. Anthes, 1 O. G. 578; same v. Keith, 5 O. G. 272 ; same v. Harris, 17 O. G. 325 ; same v. Manhattan Brass, 4 Ban. and A. 173. Also a silver plated iron spoon. Wallace v. Noyes, 13 F. R. 172.
161Ex parte Tweedle, 10 O. G. 747. Ironclad v. Jacob Vollrath, 52 F. R. 143. But claims which merely recite indefinite properties are invalid. North American Chemical v. Keno, 227 F. R. 63.
162Waterbury Brass v. Miller, 5 Fish. 48; Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 189 F. R. 93; 196 F. R. 499; Pickhardt v. Packard, 22 F. R. 530 ; Warren v. Owos- so, 166 F. R. 309; on preliminary in- junction, Warren v. Montgomery, 172 F. R. 414.
163 Adams v. Bridgewater, 26 F. R. 324; Cerealine v. Bates, 101 F. R. 272; Blumenthal v. Burrell, 43 F. R. 667; Dickerson v. Maurer, 108 F. R. 233 ; Hem- olin v. Harway, 131 F. R, 483; Farben- fabriken v. Kuehmsted, 171 F. R, 887; 179 F. R. 701; Perkins Glue v. Solva, 223 F. R. 729; Badische Anilin v. Ham- ilton, 13 O. G. 273. But not if the use-
ful form is old, though rare. American v. Bridgewater, 132 F. R, 16. A better cooked, more attractive food is not pat- entable. Sanitas v. Voigt, 139 F. R. 551; Maryland v. Dorr, 46 F. R. 773; So also ground coffee. Bates v. Duncombe, 146 F. R. 744. Compare prismatic glass. Pressed Prism v. Continuous, 150 F. R. 355. Union Carbide v. American, 172 F. R. 120; infringed, 181 F. R. 104. Better keeping qualities. Rumford v. N. Y., 134 F. R. 385. But see Maryland Hominy v. Baltimore, 46 F. R. 660. An insoluble dye does not anticipate the same made soluble by prolonged washing. Bad- ische v. Kalle, 104 F. R. 802. Claim to crystaline calcium carbide is valid. Union Carbide v. Amer. Carbide, 188 F. R. 334. But wire having paraffine compressed into its coating is not patentable, where other ingredients have been so pressed. West- ern Elec. v. Ansonia Brass, 9 F. R. 706.
IGiVery minor modifications of ma terial may be patentable in an electric battery. Elec. Accumulator v. Brush, 52 F. R. 130.
166But an equivalent is to be construed in the light of the prior art. Jensen v. Clay, 59 F. R, 290.
l66Compare Stevens v. Seher, 81 O. G. 1932.
167Spill v. Celluloid, 10 F. R. 290. Read Holiday v. Schulze-Berge, 78 F. R. 493. Compare Parke Davis v. H. K. Mul- ford, 189 F. R. 95; Parsons v. Colgate. 15 F. R. 600. But the burden is on the defendant to show the different process. Pickhardt v. Packard, 22 F. R. 530.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
33
ferent168 process. A product is not novel if a description169 of a process has been published, if that necessarily produced the product. The kind of170 utility residing in a product may be controlling as to the question of infringement. It follows from what has been said above that it is impossible to lay down any controlling rule for deciding whether it is171 process or172 product which is patentable when one is obvious the other given. This is analogous to the fact that a machine may be173 patentable though its structure is obvious once the problem is stated which the machine solves, though patentability often resides in the machine itself. A product may be patentable because it has hitherto been unattainable, but a new process174 makes it available ; and where a process and product are claimed in a single patent and are both infringed, the courts often hold the product176 claims good as a matter of course when the process is new.
The doctrine of equivalents is often difficult of application in com- position patents and some confusion exists as to the meaning of the dic- tum that a newly discovered176 substance cannot be construed as an equiv- alent in infringement suits. An equivalent of a substance is another hav- ing substantially the177 same effect to be determined by appropriate tests
168Cochrane v. Badische, 111 U. S. 293; Phimmer v. Sargent, 120 U. S. 442; Bene v. Jeantet, 129 U. S. 683; Dittmar v. Rix, 1 F. R. 342; Cotter v. New Haven Copper, 13 F. E. 234; Jensen v. Clay, 59 F. R. 290. Expanded Metal v. Board of Education, 111 F. R. 395. A product is not patentable though made by a new process, if old in itself. Societe Fabri- rique v. George Lueders, 135 F. R. 102; 142 F. R. 753. Compare Victor v. Amer- ican, 151 F. R. 601.
169In re Griffith, 187 O. G. 517. Com- pare Hosier v. Hosier, 127 U. S. 345.
170Union Tubing v. Patterson, 23 F. R. 79; Celluloid v. Chrolithion, 23 F. R. 397; Blumenthal v. Burrell, 43 F. R. 667 ; American Gramophone v. Walcutt, 87 F. R. 556; Am. Gramophone v. Leeds, 87 F. R. 873; Byerley v. Sun, 184 F. R, 455; Jenkins v. Johnson, 5 Fish. 433.
171Both often are patentable. R. Thomas v. Electric, 111 F. R. 923. Com- pare National Enamelling v. N. E., 151 F. R. 19.
172Oval Wood v. Sandy Creek, 60 F. R. 285 ; International v. William Cramp, 202 F. R. 932.
173Tnternational Curtis v. W. Cramp,
211 F. R. 124; Hiehle Printing v. Whi- lock, 223 F. R. 647; Snook -Roentgen v. Stetson, 237 F. R. 204.
174Thomson Electric Welding v. Barn- ey, 227 F. R. 428; Hobbs v. King, 8 F. R. 91; Providence Rubber v. Good- year, 9 Wall. 788; Hoffman v. Stiefel,
3 Fish. 638; Waterbury Brass v. Miller, 5 Fish. 48.
175Consolidated v. Hassam Paving, 227 F. R. 436.
176Welling v. Le Bau, 34 F. R. 40; Hoke Engraving v. Schraubstadter, 47 F. R. 506; American Sulphite v. Hink- ley, 217 F. R. 57 ; Hunising v. American Sulphite, 228 F. R. 700; Goodyear v. Davis, 12 O. G. 1; Standard Paint v. Bird, 175 F. R. 346; Bailey v. Lincoln,
4 Fish. 379; Colgate v. Law, 5 Ban. and A. 437 ; Goodyear v. Berry, 3 Fish. 439.
177Treibacher Chemische v. Roessler, 219 F. R. 210; Tyler v. Boston, 7 Wall. 327 ; Francis v. Mellor, 1 O. G. 48 ; Jenk- ins v. Walker, 1 O. G. 359; Wonson v. Gilman, 11 O. G. 1011; Atlantic Giant v. Mowbray, 12 O. G. Ill; Wonson v. Pe- terson, 13 O. G. 548; Clark v. Johnson, 17 O. G. 1401; 18 O. G. 1276; Pratt v. Thompson, 72 O. G. 1347 ; Ryan v. Good-
34
CHEMICAL PATENTS
especially practical use, but novel178 physical characteristics may create novelty even though chemical tests show articles to be old. A chemical analysis may be controlling where no179 adequate explanation is offered by defendants. It is the utility wThich is controlling, and a composition having new180 utility, not previously obtainable by those skilled in the art is patentable even though it differs from another only in degree181
win.l Bobb.725; Goodyear v. Wait, 3 Fish. 242; Matthews v. Skates, 1 Fish. 602; Holiday v. Pickhardt, 12 F. B. 147; Co- lumbia Chemical v. Butherford, 58 F. B. 787; Standard v. Bird, 65 F. B. 509; Propfe v. Coddington, 108 F. B. 86; A. B. Dick v. Pomeroy, 117 F. B. 154 ; Hem- olin v. Harway, 138 F. B, 54; Sloan v. Portland, 139 F. B. 23; Mauer v. Dick- erson, 113 F. B. 870; Farbenfabriken v. Kuehmsted, 171 F. B. 887; 179 F. B. 701; Atlantic Giant Powder v. Dittmar Powder, 9 F. B. 316; Pasteur Chamber- land Filter v. Funk, 52 F. B. 146 ; Blount v. Societe etc. Filter, 53 F. B. 98; Bead Holiday v. Schultz-Berge, 78 F. B. 493; Clark v. Johnson, 4 F. B. 437; Parsons v. Colgate, 15 F. B. 600; United Nickel v. Pendleton, 15 F. B. 39 ; Boyer v. Chi- cago, 20 F. B. 853; Spill v. Celluloid, 21 F. B. 631; 22 F. B. 94; Commercial v. Fairbank, 27 F. B, 78. Scope depends on prior art. Spill v. Celluloid, 10 F. B. 290. Soft solder in form of a paste is not anticipated by hard solder, or by what is called solder but is not the same. Kupfer v. Westinghouse, 212 F. B. 184. An alloy patent is infringed by the same alloy plus other ingredients if the theory and utility of the patent will cover it. Hoskins v. General Elec. 212 F. B. 422. In a process. Harrisburgh v. N. Y., 217 F. B. 366; Compare Vollrath v. Corn- stock, 59 O. G. 1105. In infringement compare Oriental v. De Jonge, 234 F: B. 895; and 235 F. B. 294.
178Ex parte Sommer, 58 O. G. 1255; Eastman v. Hinkel, 5 Ban. and A. 1; Plastic Slate v. Moore, 1 Holmes 167; Elec. Accumulator v. Brush, 52 F. B. 130 ; Bridgeport v. Hooper, 5 F. B. 63; Co- lumbia Chemical v. Butherford, 58 F. B. 787. Solubility which makes useful. Bad- ische v. Kalle, 104 F. B. 802; Badische v. Klipstein, 125 F. B. 543. But not merely because powdered. Milligan v. Upton, 6 O. G. 837; 97 U. S. 3. Com- pare ex parte Frasch, 77 O. G. 1427. But see Adams v. Loft, 4 Ban. and A. 495.
179General Bakelite v Nikolas, 225 F. B. 539; Kiesele v. Haas, 32 F. B. 794;
A. B. Dick v. Belke, 86 F. B. 149; Bad- ische v. Klipstein, 125 F. B. 543; Haar- man-De v. Van Dyk, 165 F. B. 934. But the analysis must be adequate and clear. Hentschel v. Carthage, 169 F. B. 114; and Byam v. Eddy, 2 Blatschf. 521. But see Allen v. Hunter, 6 McLean, 303.
ISONational Enamelling v. N. E., 139 F. B. 643; Chadeloid v. De Bonde, 146 F. B. 988; Warren v. Owosso, 166 F. B. 309; Warren v. N. Y., 187 F. B. 831; Commercial Acetylene v. Avery, 166 F.
B. 907; Kupfer v. Westinghouse, 212 F. B. 184; Hoskins v. General Electric, 212 F. B. 422; Bead Holiday v. Schulze- Berge, 78 F. B. 493; Columbia Chem- ical v. Butherford, 58 F. B. 787; A. B. Dick v. Belke, 86 F. B. 149; King v. Anderson, 90 F. B. 500; Panzl v. Bat- tle Island, 138 F. B, 48; Non hydro- scopic. Hemolin v. Harway, 138 F. B. 54. But the mere idea of having it ready does not make it patentable. Ohio Var- nish v. Glidden, 215 F. B. 902. But it must be defined by its ingredients rather than its useful properties. North Am. Chemical v. Keno, 227 F. B. 63. Merely adulterated food is not patentable. In re Weida, 6 O. G. 681. An applicant can submit affidavits as to utility of combina- tion. Ex parte Boclgers, 16 O. G. 1233. A composition in which an element has no utility is not patentable. Ex parte Dan- ford, 131 O. G. 942. But see Adams v. Loft, 4 Ban. and A. 495. A mortar may differ patentably from a paint. PJast it- Slate v. Moore, 1 Holmes 167. Compare Gordon v. Turko-Halvah, 233 F. B. 430.
ISlPanzl v. Battle Island, 132 F. R. 607; 138 F. B. 48; Keasbey v. Philip Carey, 139 F. B. 571; Ajax v. Brady, 155 F. B. 409; reversed 160 F. E. 84; Warren v. Owosso, 166 F. B. 309; War- ren v. Montgomery, 172 F. B. 414; Bad- ische v. Kalle, 104 F. B. 802; Cleveland v. U. S., 52 F. B. 385; McCormick v. Medusa, 222 F. B. 288; Woodward v.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
35
of ingredients. No composition is novel within the meaning of patent law which is merely made of182 better materials and which is only such a composition as a physician or expert183 in the art might be expected to prescribe or devise; nor one which is an184 artificial matching of a natural compound. Similar considerations control the question of in- fringement185. Thus a patent will not be construed to cover a composi- tion not within its terms, and only accidentally186 nearly equivalent. So it follows that a really novel composition cannot be rejected on an aggre- gation187 of references though a new composition may infringe188 an old one, but the mere discovery of new properties in a composition or manu- facture189 otherwise old does not make it patentable. Broad names in a
Morrison, 2 O. G. 120; Badische Anilin v. Hamilton, 13 O. G. 273 ; Badische Ani- lin v. Higgin, 14 O. G. 414; Cahill v. Beckf ord, Holmes 48 ; Goodyear v. AVait, 3 Fish. 242; Jenkins v. John- son, 5 Fish. 433; Plastic Slate v. Moore, 1 Holmes 167. Oily sawdust which will not stain, — see decision and dissent, ('otto Waxo v. Perolin, 185 F. R. 267. Bituminous macadam. Warren v. N. Y. 187 F. R. 831. Homologues in chemis- try. Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 189
F. R. 95.
182Bucken v. McKesson, 7 F. R. 100; Smith v. Murray, 27 F. R. 69. Adding lard oil to wax not patentable. A. B. Dick v. Wichelman, 108 F. R. 961. Analogous material. Rumford v. Lauer, 3 O. G. 349; and Rumford v. Hecker, 3 O. G. 353.
183U. S. v. Merrimack, 9 O. G. 202; Fn re Shaefer, 66 O. G. 514; Bender v. Hoffman, 85 O. G. 1737. In re Wels- bach, 179 O. G. 1111; Boykin v. Baker, 9 F. R. 699; Welling v. Crane, 21 F. R. 707; Peoria Target v. Cleveland, 47 F. R. 725; Ex parte Crippen, Hart's Di- gest 238; 43 Mss. C. D. Such as a mix- ture of anilin colors. Ex parte Landen- berger, 1871 C. D. 179. Or a paint con- taining oxide of copper. Tarr v. Webb, 2 0. G. 568. Partially coked coal is not Datentable. Musgrave v. Comr. of Pats., 78 O. G. 2047.
184Cochrane v. Badische, 111 U. S. 293; Hoskins v. Matthes, 108 F. R. 404. Com- pare Tarr v. Folsom, 5 O. G. 92. The fibre obtained from a given source is not patentable. Ex parte Latirner, 46 O.
G. 1638. But see, in re Corbin, Mac Arthur, 521.
185Impure will not infringe pure where
composition is indefinite. Blumenthal v. Burrell, 53 F. R. 105. Nor will all dry mince meat infringe the first patent to dry mince meat. Dougherty v. Doyle, 59 F. R. 470 ; 63 F. R. 475. See Blum- enthal v. Burrell, 43 F. R. 667; King v. Anderson, 90 F. R. 500; Pittsburgh Iron v. Seaman, 236 F. R. 756.
186Kirk v. Elkins, 19 F. R. 417. Contra, N. Y. Pharm. v. Tilden, 14 F. R. 740.
187Ryan v. Goodwin, 1 Robb. 725; Brown v. Hewitt, MacArthur, 310. But it is not patentable where the ingredients and their properties are well known. Well- ing v. Crane, 14 F. R. 571. But a com- position is novel even though a chemist by long experimenting might have dis- covered the novel combination. Celluloid v. Am. Zylonite, 35 F. R. 301. But not if experimenting seems obvious. A. B. Dick v. Wichelman, 105 F. R. 629; 108
F. R. 961. A rearrangement of ingre- dients of a food in specific proportions is patentable. Ex parte Heide, 8 O. G. 817. A beverage having a new flavor is pat- entable. Rogers v. Ennis, 14 O. G. 601.
188Atlantic Giant v. Mowbray, 12 O.
G. Ill; Atlantic Giant v. Goodyear, 13 O. G. 45; Eastman v. Hinckel, 5 Ban. and A. 1 ; Goodyear v. Rust, 3 Fish. 456 ; Goodyear v. Berry, 3 Fish. 439; Good- year v. Evans, 3 Fish. 390.
189General Electric v. Yost, 139 F. R, 568; Dorian v. Guie, 25 F. R. 816; Royer v. Willemsen, 40 F. R. 158. But old ingredients may co-act in a new way to create patentability. McEwan v. White, 63 F. R. 570. But if new and use- ful is patentable because of even only solubility. Badische v. Kalle. 104 F. R. 802; Stow v. Chicago, 104 U. S. 547; Ex parte Todd, 185 O. G. 250; In re French, 186 O. G. 991.
36
CHEMICAL PATENTS
patent do not entitle the patentee to cover elements which are not190 equivalents for the purpose -of the patentee in view of the prior art, and similar facts hold191 interference practice.
''Manufactures" as192 used in the patent law has a very compre- hensive sense, embracing whatever is made by the art or industry of man, not being a machine, a composition of matter or a de- sign. In manufactures the kind of utility193 is often, if not usually, controlling in questions both of patentability194 and infringe -
190In a process Philadelphia v. Davis, 84 F. E. 881; 79 F. E. 357. Adding a well-known substance to any composition is invalid. Boon v. Himnan, 1870 C. D. 7; Clarke v. Johnson, 17 0. G. 1401; 18 O. G. 1276. Compare (Incandescent Lamp Patent), Consolidated v. McKees- port, ]59 U. S. 465; Compare Stevens v. Seher, 81 O. G. 1932. Compare Ben- der v. Hoffman, 85 O. G. 1737. Compare interferences. Wilson v. Ellis, 211 O. G. 286.
191Wilson v. Ellis, 211 0. G. 286. Two compositions do not interfere when their vital elements are not the same. Jackson v. Nichols, 1871 C. D. 278.
192Eiter-Conley v. Aiken, 203 F. E. 699. But see Jacobs v. Baker, 7 Wall. 295. Compare ex parte Ackerson, 1869 C. D. 75.
193Lockwood v. Hooper, 25 F. E. 910; same v. Cutter, 11 F. E. 794; same v. same, 18 F. E, 635; same v. Cleveland, 18 F. E. 37; Ova Wood v. Sandy Creek, 60 F. E. 285; Binns v. Zucker, 70 F. E, 711; Thompson v. Bushnell, 96 F. B. 238,; Welsbach v. Eex, 94 F. E. 1001; E. Thomas v. Electric, 111 F. E. 923 ; Am. Sulphite v. De Grasse, 157 F. E. 660; Commercial Acetylene v. Avery, 166 F. E. 907; Arbetter v. Lewis, 154 O. G. 516; In re Hodginson, 182 O. G. 251; Chicago Film v. Motion, 186 F. E. 989; General Electric v. Laco, 233 F. E. 96; Tuck v. Bramhill, 3 Fish. 400; In re Heath, 230 O. G. 335; Jenkins v. Wal- ker, 1 O. G. 359; Goodyear v. Smith, 5 0. G. 585; Goodyear v. Eoot, 6 O. G. 154; Goodyear v. Willis, 7 O. G. 41; Smith v. Goodyear, 93 U. S. 486; Phil- lips v. Detroit, 16 O. G. 627; Ex parte Shannon, 59 O. G. 297 ; Nimmy v. Comr. Pats., 86 O. G. 345; Marsden v. Comr. Pats., 87 O. G. 1239. The first board which really replaces lath and plaster is patentable. Sackett v. Eatkowsky, 167
F. E. 138. Colored asphalt roofing. Standard Paint v. Bird, 175 F. E. 346. Corrugated nail. Dunbar v. Field, 4 F.
E. 543; Gilbert v. Watzelhan, 197 F. E. 315; Dart v. Saylor, 212 F. E. 407; Stil- well v. McPherson, 218 F. E. 839. A fabric is anticipated by substantially the same, even though too narrow to fulfill the utility of the patented fabric. Smith v. Elliott, 1 O. G. 331. Wooden pipes coated with boiled tar and sawdust, novel over tar and sand. Hobbie v. Smith, 27
F. E. 656. Shoe tip of muslin stiffened with shellac, not anticipated by rubber tip or fabric alone. Shuter v. Davis, 16 F. E. 564. An insulator made by fusing not patentable over mere cementing. In re Locke, 94 O. G. 432. But see King v. Gallum, 109 U. S. 99; and Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604. See N. Y. Belt v. Magowan, 141 U. S. 332. ' < Filament ' ' in electric lamp. Edison Electric v. U. S. Elec., 52 F. E. 300. But utility must be revolutionary or the patent is invalid. Johnson v. Hero Fruit Jar. 55 F. E. 659.
194Schillinger v. Gunther, 14 0. G. 713; same v. same, 11 O. G. 831; same v. same, 16 O. G. 905; same v. Perine, 8 F. E. 821; New York Belting v. Magowan, 27 F. E. 362; 141 U. S. 332; Shannon v. Brunner, 33 F. E. 289; Electric Accumu- lator v. N. Y., 50 F. E. 81; Accumu- lator v. Edison, 63 F. E. 979; Hatch v. Electric Storage, 100 F. E. 975; A. B. Dick v. Fuerth, 57 F. E. 834: Brush v. Milford, 58 F. E, 387; A. B. Dick v. Wichelman, 74 F. E. 800; American Gram- ophone v. Leeds, 87 F. E. 873; Forsyth v. Garlock, 142 F. E. 461; Ex parte Gunther, 1871 C. D. 199; Ex parte Lup- ton, 5 O. G. 489; Lewis v. Semple, 177 F. E. 407; Ex parte Phillips, 12 O. G. 311; Ex parte Odheimer, 49 O. G. 1693; Cheneau v. Comr. Pats., 70 O. G. 924; California v. Schalicke, 119 U. S. 401;
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
37
nient.195 The claims will often be held196 invalid unless they bring out the utility or some197 cooperation of elements which will serve as an identifying test. The underlying theory of co- ordination of elements of a manufacture or composition itself is often controlling in deciding questions of novelty198 and in-
Hurlburt v. Schillinger, 130 U. S. 456; Rajah v. Emil, 188 F. K. 73; American Rolled Gold v. Coe, 212 F. R. 720; Rem- busch v. Bennethum, 214 F. R. 257; Stead Lens v. Kryptok, 214 F. R. 368; Fitch- burg Duck v. Barrell, 214 F. R; 777; Sporting v. Haskell, 217 F. R. 407; Ex parte Milligan, 1871 C. D. 215. Ticket in terms of money instead of mileage valid. Rand McNally v. Exchange Script, 187 F. R. 984; but see same, 203 F. R. 278. Size controls. Johnston v. Ameri- can Heat, 48 F. R. 446. But the struc- ture must be really new. Browning v. Colorado, 61 F. R. 845. Compare Am. Split Feather v. Levy, 43 F. R. 381. Compare Andrews v. Thum, 67 F. R. 911. Digester with continuous cement lining valid. Am. Sulphite v. Rowland, 80 F. R. 395. No utility in new coordina- tion,— void. Am. Steel v. Denning, 160 F. R. 125. The first board which 'really replaces lath and plaster is patentable. Sackett v. Rathowsky, 167 F. R. 138. But making it in continuous sheets or larger than it was does not make a new article. Ex parte Cobb, 5 O. G. 751. Ribs in new place in rubber shoe not patent- able. Meyer v. Prichard, 7 O. G. 1012. Gutta percha covered wire has new utility as electric conductor; patentable though other things had been so covered. Colgate v. Western Union, 14 O. G. 943.
195Commercial Acetylene v. Avery, 166 F. R. 907 ; California Artif . v. Starr, 52 F. R. 297; American Sulphite v. St. Regis, 217 F. R. 51; Brown v. Rubber Step, 13 O. G. 369 ; Rubber Step v. Met- ropolitan, 13 O. G. 549; Goodyear v. Mullee, 3 Fish. 209; Ready v. Taylor, 3 Ban. and A. 368; Strong v. Nobel, 3 Fish. 586; Kuhl v. Mueller, 21 F. R. 510; California Artif. Stone v. Freeborn, 17 F. R. 735; Schillinger v. Middleton, 31 F. R, 736; Schillinger v. Gunther, 11 O. G. 831; Tibbe v. Mis- souri, 62 F. R. 158; Thrall v. Poole, 89 F. R. 718. A "thread" covers a "band" where utility is the same. Haskell v. Per- fect, 143 F. R. 128. A series of coatings
breaking joints covers a continuous one. American Sulphite v. Burgess, 103 F. R. 975. Glue and glycerine in lining pipe. Taylor v. Archer, 4 Fish. 449, but com- pare Union Tubing v. Patterson, 27 F. R. 79.
196Hide Ite v. Fiber, 226 F. R. 34; Ex parte Rogers, 49 O. G. 1361. But see Ex parte Pease, 202 O. G. 631. The utility so brought out must be novel. Mil- ton v. Jordan, 208 F. R. 569.
197Daniel Green v. Dodgeville, 210 F. R. 164. The elements, not the resulting composition should have its properties de- fined. North Am. Chemical v. Keno, 227 F. R. 63.
198Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 130 U. S. 87 ; Gandy v. Main Belting, 143 U. S. 487; In re Carpenter, 112 O. G. 503. In re Faber, 136 O. G. 229; In re Harbeck, 191 O. G. 586; In re Ferris, 192 O. G. 745; In re Groves, 200 O. G. 856; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349 ; Reed v. Street, 34 O. G. 339; De Florez v. Reynolds, 3 Ban. and A. 292; McEwan v. McEwan, 91 F. R. 787; Am. Grass v. Choate, 159 F. R, 140; Western Tube v. Rainear, 156 F. R. 49; 159 F. R. 431; Hogan v. Westmoreland, 167 F. R. 327; Electric Storage v. Philadelphia, 211 F. R. 154; Dart v. Saylor, 212 F. R. 407; Consoli- dated v. Hassam, 227 F. R. 436; Welling v. Rubber Coated, 7 O. G. 606; reversed 97 U. S. 7; Dalton v. Nelson, 9 O. G. 1112; Collender v. Came, 10 O. G. 467; Epinger v. Richey, 12 O. G. 714. Love- joy v. Hill, 17 O. G. 331; Ex parte Strong 17 O. G. 446. Collar fabric made of sheets of celluloid and linen, not antici- pated by liquid celluloid on linen collars. Celluloid v. Chrolithion, 23 F. R. 397; 25 F. R. 482. Nor does non-celluloid anti- cipate celluloid structure. Celluloid v. Chrolithion, 24 F. R. 275. See also Cel- luloid v. Am. Zylonite, 35 F. R. 417. A better bicycle rim is not patentable when only an evolution. Pope v. Clark, 46 F. R. 789. Even if it is only saving great expense. Edison v. Novelty, 167 F. R. 977. In a composition. Chadeloid
38
CHEMICAL PATENTS
fringement,199 though the terms of a200 specification will often control, as well as the prior art.201 A manufacture,202 like a door mat having patterns to produce shadow effects is patentable (as a design), but mere printing203 on an old fabric is not patentable204 even to produce a mercantile205 form, though a street car transfer ticket may be patentable206 because of the utility of the notations printed there- on as mechanical aids to the conductor issuing the transfer. Adding details to or using improved materials on an old structure to fit it for new207 use will not ordinarily make it patentable, but where some totally208 unex- pected utility becomes apparent thereby, the new manufacture is pat- entable, and a patent will be construed to cover other manufactures
v. Wilson, 220 F. R. 681; 224 F. R. 481. Porcelain knob not patentable. Hotch- kiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248. Or where a new material makes a new utility. Smith v. Goodyear, 93 U. S. 486.
199N. Y. Asbestos v. Ambler Asbestos, 103 F. K. 316; H. W. Johns v. Robert- son, 60 F. K. 900; 77 F. R, 985; At- lantic v. Climax, 72 F. R. 925; Steel Clad v. Mayor, 77 F. R. 736; reversed 80 F. R. 904; A. B. Dick v. Wichelman, 80 F. R. 519; Peerless Rubber v. White, 118 F. R. 827; Chadeloid v. De Ronde, 146 F. R. 988; Electric Storage v. Phil- adelphia, 211 F. R. 154; American Roll Gold v. Coe, 212 F. R. 720; Forsyth v. Clapp, 4 O. G. 527; Welling v. Rubber Coated, 7 O. G. 606; Goodyear v. Flagg, 9 O. G. 153; Dalton v. Nelson, 9 O. G. 1112; Goodyear v. Davis, 12 O. G. 1; 102 U. S. 222; Hoff v. Iron Clad, 139 IT. S. 326; Voorhees Rubber v. MacDon- ald, 231 F. R. 741; Herzog v. Keller, 234 F. R. 85; De Florez v. Reynolds, 3 Ban. and A. 292; U. S. Metallic v. Hew- itt, 236 F. R. 739. In a composition. Chadeloid v. Wilson, 220 F. R. 681; 224 F. R. 481.
200Thompson v. Jennings, 66 F. R. 57 ; Steel Clad v. Davison, 80 F. R. 904; 81 F. R. 868; George Frost v. Cohn, 119 F. R. 505; Gilbert v. Watzelhan, 197 F. R. 316; Standard Paint v. Bird, 218 F. R. 373; Trussed v. Corrugated, 222 F. R, 514; Orr v. Aschenbach, 225 F. R. 71.
' 201Thompson v. Jennings, 66 F. R. 57; Atlantic v. Climax, 72 F. R. 925. A mere reversing of the prior structure may be
patentable. Edison v. Novelty, 167 F. R, 977.
202N. Y. Belt v. N. J. 48, F. R. 556; 137 U. S. 445; 53 F. R. 810. See also Royce v. Fineld, 18 F. R. 262. Compare enamelled steel. National Enamelling v. N. E.} 139 F. R, 643; reversed 151 F. R. 19. But a collar made from embossed paper is not patentable. Union v. Le- land, 7 0. G. 221.
203Compare ex parte Loewenberg, 1869 C. D. 92. Nor making celluloid imitate onyx. Arlington v. Celluloid, 97 F. R. 91.
204Brigham v. Coffin, 149 U. S. 557. Compare Union Paper Collar v. Van Deusen, • 23 Wall. 530.
205So a method of bookkeeping is not patentable. Hotel v. Lorraine, 155 F. R. 298.
206Cincinnati v. Pope, 210 F. R. 443. Compare Benj. Menu v. Rand, 210 F. R. 285; and ex parte Moeser, 118 O. G. 590; 123 O. G. 655. Compare Hollister v. Ben- edict, 113 U. S. 59.
207De La Vergne v. Valentine, 66 F. R. 765; Reynolds v. Standard, 68 F. R. 483; Plastic v. City, 97 F. R. 620; N. Y. Belt v. Sierer, 158 F. R. 819; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112; Union Paper Collar v. Van Deusen, 23 Wall. 530. Not even if cheapness of manufacture is ob- tained. Cover v. Am. Thermo Ware, 188 F. R. 670. Can with joints both soldered and lap clamped, void. Combined Pat- ents v. Lloyd, 11 F. R. 153. Foundation honey comb patent mentioning wax as ingredient, anticipates wax foundation. Van Deusen v. Nellis, 18 F. R. 596.
208Griffith v. Murray, 46 F. R. 660; Collins v. Gleason, 68 F. R. 915; Geo. Frost v. Cohn, 119 F. R. 505; Cellu- loid v. Chrolithion, 25 F. R. 482.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS. 39
avoiding the terms of the claim but attaining the same unexpected209 utility. So the fact that structures are integral210 does not ordinarily make them patentable, but the question of analogous211 arts in this question and with reference to other manufactures, is one on which it seems impossible to lay down any broad principle not varying with the meaning of the phrases ' ' analogous art ' ' and ' ' common knowledge. ' ' An article devised so as to be made by machinery is not212 patentable where a similar one was hand made.
In the interest of equity a given fabric is held not patentable when a213 patent exists on a tire made from the fabric, and a coated paper is not patentable when a patent exists for coating whose214 primary use is to make the same paper. Here of course identity of invention is ap- parent, whereas the paper bag making process216 patent the machine and process were held absolutely independent.
Patent Office216 practice is often severe compared with Court prac- tice, but this is often justified because an applicant has many remedies while his application is pending, but almost none, except a hazardous re- issue, after his application is patented. It is now held that where217 process and apparatus are mutually dependent they may be joined in one application? but usually218 not otherwise, but the whole matter lies in the discretion of the Office which may sometimes permit a process, a product and a machine to be included in one application219 and also a
209Celluloid v. Chrolithion, 23 F. K. 215Eastern Paper Bag v. Standard, 30
397 ; 25 F. It. 482 ; United Indurated v. F. E. 63. Compare ex parte Kerr, 53
Whippany, 83 F. E. 485. But not when O. G. 919.
the difference between the prior art and 2l6See, on division of applications, Ee-
the patent is difficult to define. Societe port Of Commissioner of Patents, 235
Anon. v. Allen, 84 F. B. 812 ; but see ap- Q. G at 704.
peal, 90 PR. 815; Geo. Frost v Cohn, 217Ex te MeMah 48 a a 255;
I' 5' ??n; ?TntaloIiSTiJ- ^TS' Ex Parte Lord, 50 O. G. 987; Ex parte
,™ R' 1i°.;ubut 8ee/v ! • Norwood, 50 O G. 1129; Ex parte Hyde,
810But a built-up wood bicycle rim was go Q G> 1293 Ex ^ £v * 63'
patentable Fairbanks Wood Rim V. Q G 1381 steinmetj v. Allen 19£ u.
Moore, 78 PR. 490 .Compare Excelsior g 543 Ex te Ament U6 Q Q 5Q6 Drum v. Bortel, 190 F. E. 10. Compare '
Dodge v. Ohio 101 F. E. 584. Com- »«Ex parte Herr 41 O G. 463; Ex
pare Ex parte Grayson, 68 0. G. 1021. g11*6^^ *4 ?JQG" *45' ^X Parfe
211Eubber eraser with soft finish, valid ?,rasch »1 O. G. 4o9; Ex parte Fish
over other soft rubber articles. Lock- ?1 O- G 1615. Compare Old I Rule 41
wood v. Hooper, 25 F. E. 910, and cita- m ex Parte Bo«cher, 88 O. G. 545. Com-
tions therein Pare Ga^e v- Kell°g^ 23 F- R. 891. Com-
212 American Whip v. Hampden, 4 F. P*™ ex parte Blythe, 30 O. G. 1321;
R, 536; Eoehr v. Bliss, 82 F. E. 445. Or Compare in re Frasch, 100 O. G. 1977. made by swaging instead of casting. 219Ex parte Elbers, 12 O. G. 2; Ex
Strom v. Weir, 83 F. E. 170. Com- parte Dailey, 13 O. G. 288. Often it is
pare Eynear v. Evans, 83 F. E, 696. safe to apply separately. Victor Talking
213Palmer v. Lozier, 90 F. E. 732. v. Am. Gramophone, 189 F. E. 359. But
214Underwood v. Gerber, 149 IT. S. 224. see ex parte Cobb, 16 O. G. 175.
40
CHEMICAL PATENTS
process,220 sub process, and sub products. "Where the division has been required the process will not be rejected on the221 apparatus and func- tional claims should be222 rejected, not required to be divided out.
A drawing illustrating223 the process must be furnished if the process is capable of illustration. The Examiner224 may require demon- stration of operativeness of a process.
It is impossible to lay down any line which will justify the de- cisions225 requiring division between process and product226 and re- versing such requirement. But it is settled that having elected one species the applicant cannot227 shift to another except where otherwise great228 hardship would result. Two arts cannot be covered in the229 same patent if divisible. Division is usually required between a com-
220Ex parte Du Hotay, 16 O. G. 1002; Ex parte Elbers, 1877 C. D. 123; Ex parte Oxnard, 88 O. G. 1526. For di- vision in interference see ex parte Pow- rie, 99 O. G. 2549; Power v. Proeger, 101 O. G. 3108; Ex parte Davis, 105 O. G. 1783; Ex parte Du Motay, 16 O. G. 1002.
221Ex parte Chambers, 51 O. G. 1943. And process claims will not be suggested to an applicant claiming apparatus only. Ex parte Werner, 139 O. G. 197. Com- pare Bowers v. Von Schmidt, 80 F. R. 122; Finley v. Chapman, 1 O. G. 277.'
222Ex parte Steinmetz, 117 O. G. 901. Compare ex parte Smyth, 114 O. G. 762. Ex parte McClellan, 59 O. G. 1763. Ex parte Williams, 61 O. G. 423.
223Compare ex parte Hafely, 64 O. G. 559. Compare ex parte, Russell, 84 O. G. 2021. Compare ex parte Henry, 99 O. G. 1170; Ex parte Carter, 16 O. G. 809.
224Ex parte Wynne, 176 O. G. 1070.
225Ex parte O'Neill, 16 O. G. 1049; Ex parte David, 16 O. G. 1139; Ex parte Tainter, 47 O. G. 135; Ex parte Greenfield, 58 O. G. 274 ; Ex parte Tyme- son, 83 O. G. 593; Ex parte Murmann, 93 O. G. 1721; Ex parte Erdman, 93 O. G. 2531; Ex parte Keid, 96 O. G. 2060; Ex parte Parent, 98 O. G. 1970; Ex parte Powell, 99 O. G. 1384; Ex parte Foulis, 100 O. G. 232 ; Ex parte Lee, 100 O. G. 233; Ex parte Cowper-Coles, 100 O. G. 681; Ex parte Schmidt, 100 O. G. 2602; Ex parte Christensen, 105 O. G. 1261; Ex parte Williams, 105 O. G. 1780; Ex parte Adams, 106 O. G. 541;
Ex parte Very, 106 O. G. 766; Ex parte Frasch, 117 O. G. 1166; In re Frasch, 122 O. G. 1048; Ex parte Stemple, 197 O. G. 997; Compare Hosier v. Hosier, 127 U. S. 354. Compare Goodyear v. Wait, 3 Fish. 242. But the validity of a patent is not affected if both stand in one application. R. Thomas v. Electric 111 F. R. 923. For division in case of interference see ex parte Powrie, 99 O. G. 2549.
226Ex parte Tyne, 17 O. G. 56; Ex parte Young, 33 O. G. 1390; Ex parte de la Sala, 42 O. G. 95 ; Ex parte Fefel, 57 O. G. 409; Ex parte Curtis, 57 O. G. 1128; Ex parte Hines, 60 O. G. 576; Ex parte Demeny, 64 O. G. 1649; Ex parte Thomson, 66 O. G. 653; Ex parte Kny, 65 O. G. 1403; Ex parte Bennett, 105 6. G. 1262; Ex parte Dallas, 106 O. G. 996. Compare ex parte Scott, 147 O. G. 520. Compare ex parte Blair, 43 O. G. 113.
227Ex parte Wohltmann, 16 O. G. 723 ; Ex parte Zabel, 43 O. G. 627 ; Ex parte Eschner, 63 O. G. 760; Ex parte Aberli, 91 O. G. 2371; Ex parte Randall, 95 O. G. 2063; Ex parte Ferrell, 106 O. G. 766; Ex parte Feld, 112 O. G. 252; Ex parte Walker, 113 O. G. 284; Ex parte Lawley, 113 O. G. 1967; Ex parte Stroll, 180 O. G. 1137; Ex parte Stimson, 22(1 O. G. 699. Compare ex parte HcDougall, 18 O. G. 130. Compare ex parte Hop- kinson, 54 O. G. 264.
228Ex parte Trevette, 97 O. G. 1173.
229Ex parte Rappleye, 85 O. G. 2096; Ex parte Osborne, 86 O. G. 492.
AND ALLIED PATENT PROBLEMS.
41
position and a structure or method230 of using it. Also between a231 machine and its product. A method of making a matrix and an article made therein must be applied for232 separately, also a composition233 and its container. It was formerly held with some234 degree of logic that a composition patent could contain but a single claim. The better practice in the Patent Office is that the various claims for a235 process or a composition236 may bear the relation of genus and species, if the utility of each claim for the incomplete process or composition is set forth in the specification. A claim must not237 be alternative, but an applicant should be allowed great238 latitude in drawing claims.
A claim is239 "functional" when it merely claims a "principle" or
230Ex parte Tschirner, 97 O. G. 187. Compare ex parte Clay, 101 O. G. 2567; Ex parte Stocking, 101 O. G. 2823.
231Ex parte Murray, 3 O. G. 659; Ex parte Chamberlain, 6 O. G. 544; Ex parte Junker, 11 O. G. 110; Ex parte Wintherlich, 16 O. G. 404; 16 O. G. 808. Compare ex parte Chapman, 102 O. G. 820.
232Ex parte Jennens, 108 0. G. 1587.
233Ex parte Baker, 4 O. G. 155.
234Ex parte Lippincott, 16 O. G. 632. Compare ex parte Wheat, 16 O. G. 360. Compare Panzl v. Battle Island, 138 F.
E. 48.
235Ex parte Wilson, 16 O. G. 96; Ex parte Smith, 16 O. G. 630; Slade v. Blair, 17 O. G. 261; Ex parte McDoug- all, 18 O. G. 130.
236Ex parte Hentz, 26 O. G. 437; Ex parte Gassmann, 90 O. G. 959.
237Ex parte Caldwell, 120 O. G. 2125; Ex parte Phillips, 135 O. G. 1801. But see In re Ellis, 167 O. G. 981.
238Ex parte Pease, 202 O. G. 631; Ex parte Kilbourn, 221 O. G. 737. Compare Byerley v. Barber, 230 F. E. 995. But see ex parte Chapman, 120 O. G. 2446.
239Mershon v. Bay City Box, 189 F. E. 741; Matthews v. Stoneberger, 4 F. E. 635; Brainard v. Cramme, 12 F. E. 621; Hatch v. Moffit, 15 F. E. 252; Eeay v. Berlin and Jones Envelope, 191 F. E. 311; Same v. Eaynor, 19 F. E. 308; Dryfoos v. Wiese, 19 F. E. 315; 124 U. S. 32; Chicopee Folding Box v. Eogers, 32
F. B. 695; Columbus v. Bobbins, 64 F.
E. 384; Wells Glass v. Henderson, 67
F. E. 930; Gindorff v. Deering, 81 F. E. 952; Stokes v. Heller, 96 F. E. 104; Cleveland v. Detroit, 131 F. E. 740;
American v. Sexton, 139 F. E. 564; Queen v. Friedlander, 149 F. E. 771; Conroy v. Penn, 155 F. E. 421; Penn v. Conroy, 159 F. E. 943; Am. Steel v. Denning, 160 F. E. 108; 169 F. E. 739; A. B. Dick v. Henry, 160 F. E. 690; Union Match v. Diamond, 162 F. E. 148 ; Eastern Dynamite v. Keystone, 164 F. E. 47 ; Breuchau^ v. Mutual, 166 F. E. 753 ; Eoyden Marble v. Davis, 189 F. E. 622; W. B. Mershon v. Bay City, 189 F. E. 741; U. S. v. Selma Fruit, 195 F. E. 264; Ball v Coker, 210 F. E. 278; Union v. Singer, 215 F. E. 598; Spirella v. Nubone, 216 F. E. 898; O'Eeilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62; Burr v. Duyee, 1 Wall. 531; Case v. Brown, 2 Wall. 320; Eenwick v. Pond, 2 O. G. 392; Marsh v. Dodge, 5 O. G. 398; Ex parte Holmes, 6 O. G. 360; Wheeler v. Simpson, 6 O. G. 435; Case v. Hastings, 7 O. G. 557; Ex parte Hahn, 8 O. G. 597; Ex parte Shippen, 8 O. G. 726; Ex parte Keith, 9 O. G. 793; Ex parte Harrison, 10 O. G. 373; Swain v. Ladd, 11 0. G. 153; Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U. S. 288; 94 U. S. 299; Henderson v. Cleveland, 12 O. G. 4; Ex parte Eoloson, 15 O. G. 471; Ex parte Barrett, 45 O. G. 125; Ex parte Young, 46 O. G. 1635; Ex parte Jaeger, 46 O. G. 1637; Ex parte Kerr, 53 O. G. 919; Moulton v. Comr. of Pats., 61 O. G. 1480; Ex parte Holt, 68 O. G. 536; Ex parte Knudsen, 72 O. G. 589; Ex parte Halfpenny, 73 O. G. 1135; Eis- don v. Medart, 158 U. S. 68; Boyden v. Westinghouse, 170 U. S. 537; Ex parte Cunningham, 101 O. G. 2288; 102 O. G. 842; Busch v. Jones, 184 U. S. 599; Ex parte McClain, 119 O. G. 1585; Ex parte Dixon, 123 O. G. 653; Ex parte
42
CHEMICAL PATENTS
function, or when it fails to state any industrial utility of the invention in terms of the environment to which the invention contributes the new function. The question of what is "new matter"240 in a process or com- position application is obscure in view of the wording of the statute. ' ' Substantially as described ' ' is241 sufficient definition in a claim.
Verbose and indefinite242 specifications and closely parallel243 claims are just as objectionable as in mechanical patents, so also are nebulous claims, arid claims which are not clearly directed to244 either a process or composition or a manufacture, and therefore are indefinite but245 extra descriptive matter in claims may be ignored by the Examiner.
Bullock, 127 O. G. 1580; Ex parte Plumb, 131 O. G. 1165; Ex parte Bitner, 140 O. G. 256; Leeds and Catlin v. Victor, 213 U. S. 301; Continental Paper v. Eastern, 210 U. S. 414; In re Tallraadge, 174 O. G. 1219; In re Gold, 180 O. G. 606; Burke Electric v. Independent, 232 F. K. 145; Parham v. American Button- hole, 4 Fish. 468; In re Fessenden, 226 O. G. 1081. Compare in re Gardner, 140 O. G. 258; Functional claims may be re- issued as machine. Motion Picture v. Laemmle, 214 F. K. 787; Compare Stim- son v. Woodman, 10 Wall. 1117. Com- pare ex parte Pacholder, 51 O. G. 295.
240Ex parte Gottstein, 11 O. G. 1061; Ex parte Dieckerhoff, 12 O, G. 429; Ex parte Temple, 12 O. G. 795.
241Ironclad v. Jacob J. Vollrath, 52 F. E. 143.
242Ex parte Elbers, 1877 C. D. 123; Schlicht v. Aeolipyle Co., 117 F. E. 299. They may be too indefinite. Matheson v. Campbell, 78 F. E. 910.
243Schlicht v. Aeolipyle, 117 F. E. 299; National Enamelling v. N. E., 151 F. E. 19.
244Ex parte Designolle, 13 O. G. 227. Compare ex parte Wintherlich, 17 O. G. 55.
245Ex parte Designolle, 13 O. G. 227.
TABLE OF CASES,
(References are to Notes.)
A-berli, 227.
A. Bf Dick v. Belke, 179, 180.
— v. Fuerth, 194. v. Henry, 75, 239.
- v. Pomeroy, 177.
v. Underwood, 5, 131.
v. Wichelman, 182, 187, 194, 199.
Accumulator v. Edison, 194.
v. Consolidated Elec. Storage,
119.
- v. Julien, 95.
v. Ach, 93.
v. Ackerson, 192.
Acme Acetylene v. Commercial, 92, 97. Acme Steel v. American, 111. Adams, 225. Adams v. Bridgewater, 38, 93, 163.
- v. Loft, 178, 180.
- v. Tannage, 75.
Adams and Westlake v. Wilson, 114. Adamson v. Dederick, 43. Ajax v. Brady, 85, 181. Alabastine v. Payne, 123. Alden v. Brown, 52. Allen v. Alter, 90, 131.
- v. Hunter, 77, 179. Allen Evaporating v. Bowen, 57. Alvin v. Scharling, 91.
Am Ende v. Seabury, 126. Ames v. Howard, 1. Andrews v. Carman, 77, 87.
— v. Eames, 125.
- v. Thum, 194.
Ansonia Brass v. Electrical, 75, 85. Appert v. Brownsville, 137.
v. Parker, 95.
- v. Schmertz, 67, 137. Appleton v. Ecaubert, 79.
v. Starr, 30, 50.
Ament, 217.
American Crayon v. Sexton, 239.
- Featherbone v. Warren, 131. Fibre Chamois v. Buckskin, 7, 40.
- Fibre Chamois v. Port Huron, 43,
109.
- Gramophone v. Gimbel, 19, 97.
— Gramophone v. Victor, 141.
— Gramophone v. Walcutt, 170. Grapiiophone v. Leeds, 33, 140,
170, 394.
American Grapiiophone v. Universal, 33, 40, 75.
Grass v. Choate, 198.
- Mfg. v. Lane, 14o.
Mercerizing v. Hampton, 85.
Middlings v. Atlantic, 107.
Nicholson Paving v. Elizabeth,
126 .
- Boiled Gold v. Coe, 194, 199.
- Solid v. Empire, 146.
- Split Feather v. Levy, 194.
Steel v. Denning, 194, 239.
Stove v. Cleveland, 114, 115.
Strawboard v. Elkhart, 30.
Sulphite v. Burgess, 195.
Sulphite v. De Grasse, 193.
Sulphite v. Hinkley, 176.
- Sulphite v. Howland, 194.
Sulphite v. St. Regis, 195.
Tube v. Bridgewater, 85, 163.
Whip v. Hampden, 212.
Wood Paper v. Fiber, 62, 82, 93,
157.
Wood Paper v. Heft, 25.
Arbetter v. Lewis, 193.
Arkell, 153.
Arlington v. Celluloid, 51, 203.
Arnold v. Pettee, 52.
v. Phelps, 24, 78, 90.
Asbestos Shingle v. H. W. Johns, 75, 104, 105.
v. Rock, 75, 105.
Atlantic Dynamite v. Climax, 199, 201. Atlantic Giant v. Dittmar, 84, 137, 177.
- v. Goodyear, 107, 188.
v. Mowbray, 177, 188.
v. Parker, 81.
v. Rand, 81, 107.
Atwood, 103.
B.
Badische Anilin v. Hamilton, 104, 163, 181.
v. Higgin, 104, 181.
v. Kalle, 81, 163, 178, 179.
v. Klipstein, 178.
Bailey v. Lincoln, 150, 176. Bainbridge v. Kitehell, 75. Baker, 233.
Baker v. Duncombe, 75.
Baker Lead v. National, 84, 85, 114, 115,
43
44
TABLE OF CASES.
(Eeferences are to Notes.)
Ball v. Coker, 43, 239.
Ballon v. Potter, 22, 77, 88.
Barber v. National, 140.
Barcley v. Schuler, 137.
Barney, 77.
Barrett, 239.
Barrett v. Ewing, 157.
Barrow v. Wetherill, 27, 67.
Bartey v. Lincoln, 7.
Bate, 145.
Bates v. Buncombe, 163.
Beach v. Fowler, 137.
Bean v. Smallwood, 1.
Becker v. Bird, 137.
Bedford v. Comr. of Pats., 95.
Bell v. Gray, 10, 17, 48.
Bender v. Engel, 131.
v. Hoffman, 183, 190.
Bene v. Jeantet, 22, 77, 168, 131.
Benj. Menu v. Rand, 206.
Bennett, 226.
Benson, 106.
Berardini v. Tocci, 72.
Berolzheimer, 72.
Beryle v. San Francisco, 39.
Bethlehem v. Niles, 52, 56.
Bettendorf v. J. A. Little, 75.
Bierce, 72.
Binder v. Atlanta, 115.
Binns v. Zucker, 193.
Bissel v. Robert, 132.
Bitner, 239.
Black v. Thome, 126.
Blackmore, 75, 77, 107.
Blair, 226.
Blair v. Jeanette, 115, 119.
Blakesley Novelty v. Connecticut Web,
81, 88.
Blount v. Societe etc. Filter, 177. Blumenthal v. Burrell, 138, 163, 170, 185. Blumer, 41. Blythe, 218. Bogart v. Hinds, 16. Bond, 157.
Boneless v. Roberts, 68, 125. Bonsack v. Elliot, 75. Boon v. Hinman, 190. Boston Elastic v. Easthampton, 10. Bottling v. Anheuser Busch, 80, 81. Boucher, 218. Bowers v. Pacific, 91.
v. San Francisco, 81.
v. Von Schmidt, 81, 221.
Bowker v. Dows, 123. Bowman v. De Grauw, 75. Boyd v. Cherry, 85, 123. Boyden v. Westinghouse, 10, 239.
Boykin v. Baker, 183.
Boynton v. Taggart, 131.
Bracewell v. Passaic, 22, 144.
Braemer, 90.
Brainard v. Gramme, 239.
Braun v. Wahl, 137.
Braunstein v. Holmes, 136.
Brett v. Quintard, 93.
Breuchaud v. Mutual, 33, 35, 36, 239.
Bridge v. Brown, 131, 137.
Bridgeport v. Hooper, 178.
Brigham v. Coffin, 204.
Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 198.
v. Hewitt, 187.
v. Piper, 75.
v. Rubber Step, 195.
v. Thome, 102, 114.
Browning v. Colorado, 194. Bruff v. Ives, 79, 90. Brummit v. Howard, 75.
Brush Electric v. Accumulator, 95.
v. Julien, 155.
v. Milford, 194.
Buchanan v. Howland, 25, 26. Bucken v. McKesson, 182. Buell v. Shaeffer, 137.
Buffalo Specialty v. Indiana, 141.
Bullier v. Willson, 133.
Bullock, 239.
Bullock Electric v. Crocker, 39, 66, 97.
- v. Westinghouse, 10, 123. Bump 's v. Gessler, 90.
Burdon v. Williams, 44, 51, 81, 84. Burke Electric v. Independent, 239. Burr v. Cowperthwaite, 50, 60.
v. Duryee, 37, 60, 239.
- v. Prentiss, 111. Burrell v. Elgin, 52.
Burt v. Evory, 18, 146, 198.
Busch v. Jones, 75, 239.
Butterfield, 49.
Butz, 46.
Buzzell v. Andrews, 13.
Byam v. Eddy, 179.
v. Fair, 148, 149.
Byerley v. Barber, 51, 81, 90, 238.
v. Ellis, 90, 92.
v. Standard Asphalt, 90, 92.
v. Sun, 45, 170.
Byerly v. Cleveland, 40, 81, 126.
v. Sun, 126.
C.
Cahill v. Beckford, 113.
v. Brown, 81.
v. Lockford, 181.
TABLE OF CASES.
(References are to Notes.)
Caldwell, 237.
California Artif. Stone v. Freeborn, 195.
v. Sehalicke, 194.
- v. Starr, 195.
('aim v. Schweinitz v. Dolley v. Geislcr,
334.
Cambria v. Carnegie, 126. Cameron Septic v. Knoxville, 95.
- v. Village, 41, 81. ( 'umpbell, 55.
Carborundum v. Electric, 85, 130.
Carew v. Boston, 46, 107, 127.
Carmichael v. Jackson, 75.
Carnegie v. Cambria, 23, 33, 79, 85, 117.
Carpenter, 198.
Carre, 138.
Cary v. De Haven, 119.
v. Lovell, 38, 81, 116.
v. Miller, 91.
v. Wolf, 114, 115, 116.
Case v. Brown, 239.
- v. Hastings, 239.
Casein v. A. M. Collins, 107, 114 . Carter, 223. (Jaunt v. United, 68.
Celluloid v. Am. Zylonitc, 61, 114, 125, 187, 198.
v. Arlington, 115, 119.
v. Cellonite, 91, 126.
v. Chrolithion, 170, 198, 208, 209.
v. Comstock, 90, 125.
v. Crofut, 84, 137.
v. Eastman, 92.
- v. Frederick Crane, 146, 147. v. Noyes, 75.
v. Pratt, 90, 125.
- v. Russell, 77, 88.
— v. Tower, 88, 90, 125. Century Elec. v. Wagner, 114.
' v. Westinghouse, 102, 113.
Cerealine v. Bates, 22, 24, 43, 109, 157,
163. Chadeloid v. Daxe, 92.
v. De Eonde, 180, 199.
v. Thurston, 44, 82.
v. Wilson, 198, 199.
Chaffee v. Boston Belting, 131. Chamberlain, 231. Chambers, 221.
Champney, 51. Chapman, 80, 231, 238. Chase, 50, 76.
Chase v. Fillebrown, 28, 79, 81, 92. Cheeseborough v. Toppan, 138. Chemical v. Eaymond, 22, 78. Cheneau v. Comr. Pats., 194. Chicago v. Charles Pope, 40, 53, 71.
Chicago Film v. Motion, 193. Chicopee Folding* Box v. Rogers, 239. Chinnock v. Patterson, 92. Chisholm v. Canastota, 80, 114.
- v. Fleming, 34, 60, 80, 125.
- v. Johnson, 34, 60, 86, 125. — v. Randolph, 80, 85.
Christensen, 225.
Cimiotti Unhairing v. Am. Fur, 14, 18.
Cincinnati v. Pope, 206.
Clark v. Johnson, 177, 190.
v. Kennedy, 91.
Clay, 230.
Clement v. Upson, 49, 93.
Clerk v. Tannage, 118.
Cleveland v. Detroit, 54, 101, 239.
Cleveland Target v. U. S. Pigeon, 90, 92,
181.
Clinton v. Wright, 46, 79. Coal and Coke v. Ernst, 41, 44. Cobb, 194, 219. Cochrane v. Badische, 105, 168, 184.
- v. Deener, 47, 79. Codington v. ±ropfe, 130, 131. Cohen v. U. S. Corset, 81. Coldren v. Empire, 43. Colgate v. Gold, 81.
v. Western Union, 194.
Colhoun v. Hodgson, 139. Collender v. Bailey, 146.
- v. Came, 198. Collins v. Gleason, 208.
v. White, 131.
Colton, 50.
Columbia Chemical v. Rutherford, 177, 178, 180.
Columbus v. Robbins, 239.
Combined Patents v. Lloyd, 207.
Combustion Utilities v. Worcester Gas- light, 47, 60, 61, 113, 114, 115.
Commercial v. Fairbank, 50, 90, 95, 177.
Acetylene v. Acme, 95, 98.
Acetylene v. Avery, 180, 193, 195.
- Acetylene v. Searchlight, 95, 98. Commissioner of Patents, Report of, 216. Commos v. Somers, 109.
Continental Paper v. Eastern, 239. Continuous v. Schmertz, 126. Conroy v. Penn, 50, 239. Consolidated Bunging v. Brewing, 145. Bunging v. Peter, 115.
Contract v. Hassam Paving, 40,
175, 198.
- Electric v. McKeesport, 190. Corbin, 184.
Corn Products v. Douglas, 117, 119. Corner v. Kyle, 136.
46
TABLE OF CASES.
(References are to Notes.)
Corning v. Burden, 10, IS, 50.
Cotter v. New Haven Copper, 109, 168.
Cottle v. Krementz, 63.
Cotto Waxo v. Perolin, 90, 181.
Coulton, 60.
Cover v. Am. Thermo Ware, 207.
Cowen v. Boston, 88.
Cowper-Coles, 225.
Crane v. Meriam, 100.
Crecelius, 61, 154.
Crescent v. Gottfried, 39, 67, 88.
Creveling, 24, 99, 102.
Creveling v. Jepson, 137.
Crippen, 183.
Croskey v. Atterbury, 137.
Crowell v. Harlow, 53.
v. Sim, 131.
Crown Cork v. Aluminum, 2.
v. American, 24.
- v. Brooklyn, 90, 92, 115. Cunningham, 239. Curtis, 226.
D.
Daggett v. Kaufman, 137.
Dailey, 219.
Dallas, 226.
Dalton v. Nelson, 198, 199.
Damon v. Eastwick, 34, 84.
Danford, 180.
Daniel Green v. Dolgeville, 40, 81, 197.
Dart v. Saylor, 193, 198.
Uavey v. Cutter, 34.
Davis, 220, 225.
Day v. Stellman, 141.
Daylight v. Ameican, 51.
Dayton v. Westinghouse, 58.
Dececo v. Gilchrist, 5, 18.
Decker, 81.
Dederick v. Cassell, 28, 100.
De Florez v. Keynolds, 198, 199.
De Lamar v. De Lamar, 39, 60.
de la Sala, 226.
De La Vergne v. Valentine, 207.
Delaware Metal Refining v. Woodfall,
65, 119. Demeny, 226. Deprez v. Bernstein v. Hunter v. Gaulard,
81, 95.
Designolle, 153, 244, 245. Detmold v. Eeeves, 54, 77. Detroit Copper v. Mine, 18. Dewey v. Colby, 106. Diamond v. Brown, 13, 126.
v. Dean, 41.
v. Westinghouse, 95, 96.
Dick, see A. B. Dick.
Dickerson v. Maurer, 81, 163.
Dieckerhoff, 240.
Dieckmann v. Milwaukee, 10, 44.
Dittmar v. Rix, 24, 155, 168.
Dixon, 37, 72, 239.
Dodge v. Collins, 65.
v. Ohio, 210.
Doelger v. German-American, 29. Dolbear v. Am. Telephone, 114, 137, 145. Donaldson v. Marbolith, 46, 115.
v. Roksament, 46.
Donner v. Am. Sheet, 77.
Dorian v. Guie, 85, 86, 189.
Dosselman, 24.
Doubleday v. Bracheo, 25.
Dougherty v. Doyle, 185.
Downs v. Teter-Heany, 24, 68, 115.
Downton v. Yeager Milling, 77, 81.
Doyle v. McRoberts, 131.
Draper v. Hudson, 159.
Dreyfus v. Searle, 50, 83.
Droop, 43.
Dryfoos v. Wiese, 239.
Du Motay, 146, 220.
Dunbar v. Field, 193.
Dunkley v. Beekhuis, 114.
Durand v. Green, 146.
- v. Schultze, 146. Dutcher v. Jackson, 137.
E.
Eachus v. Broomall, 100.
Eagleton v. West, 107.
Eames v. Andrews, 81, 91, 107, 113.
Eastern Dynamite v. Keystone. 239.
Eastern Paper Bag v. Standard, 39, 41,
103, 215. Eastman v. Getz, 52, 109.
v. Hinkel, 178, 188.
Edison, 96, 99, 102, Edison v. Allis, 30, 57, 65.
v. Hardie, 32.
— .- v. Klaber, 90.
v. Novelty, 198, 201.
v. U. S. Elec., 193.
Eibel v. Remington, 12, 34. Eisenstein v. Fibiger, 75. Elbers, 219, 220, 242. Elec. Accumulator v. Brush, 96, 156, 178, 164.
v. Julien, 81, 90.
v. N. Y., 90, 194.
Electric Boot v. Little, 76.
Electric Smelting v. Carborundum, 26, 114, 115, 116, 118.
TABLE OF CASES.
(References are to Notes.)
Electric v. Pittsburgh, 46, 118. Electric Storage v. Belknap, 92.
v. Gould, 114, 115.
v. Philadelphia, 80, 149, 198, 199.
Ellis, 237.
Emerson and Norris v. Simpson Bros.,
45, 46, 81, 91, 131. Engineer v. Hotel, 30, 137. Epinger v. Bichey, 198. Erdman, 225. Eschner, 227. Evans v. Suess, 46. Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating, 55, 81,
126.
Everett v. Haulenbeek, 46. Everson, 217.
Excelsior v. Union Needle, 159. Excelsior Drum v. Bortel, 210. Expanded Metal v. Bradford, 11, 77.
v. Board of Education, 168.
Ewart v. Boline, 10, 16.
F.
Faber, 198.
Fabric Coloring v. Alexander, 5.
Fairbanks Wood Rim v. Moore, 210.
Falk v. Missouri, 3, 75.
Fancy v. Empire Fire Clay, 10.
Farbenfabriken v. Kuehmsted, 163, 177.
Farrel v. United Verde, 43, 50.
Fefel, 226.
Feld, 227.
Ferrell, 227.
Ferris, 198.
Ferris v. Batcheller, 146.
Ferro v. Concrete, 90, 92.
Fessenden, 239.
Finley v. Chapman, 106, 221.
Fireball v. Commercial, 92, 95, 97, 98.
Fire Extinguisher Case, 81.
Fish, 218.
Fitch v. Spang, 100, 115.
Fitchburg Duck v. Barrell, 194.
Flather v. Weber, 136.
Flora v. Powrie, 131.
Flower v. Detroit, 18.
Foote v. Silsby, 151.
Forbes v. Thomson, 100.
Ford v. Tannage, 118.
Forsyth v. Clapp, 199.
v. Garlock, 194.
Foulis, 225.
Fox v. Knickerbocker, 126, 127. Francis v. Mellor, 24, 77, 107, 177. Frankford Whiskey v. Mill Creek, 47 ,79. Franklin v. Morton v. Cooley, 138.
Frasch, 47, 178, 218, 225. French, 189. . French v. Holcomb, 136.
v. Eogers, 38.
Fried. Krupp v. Midvale, 43, 50, 62, 77,
Fritts, 26.
Fry v. Rockwood, 75, 83.
Fuller v. Yentzer, 239.
Fullerton v. Anderson, 88, 90, 114, 126.
G.
Gage v. Kellogg, 84, 218.
Gandy v. Main Belting, 198.
Gardner, 239.
Gassmann, 236.
Gayler v. Wilder, 82.
Gaylord, 106.
Geis v. Kimber, 123.
General Bakelite v. Nikolas, 115, 179.
General Chemical v. Blackmore, 107.
General Electric v. Butler, 52.
v. Campbell, 92.
v. Garrett, 24, 44.
v. Germania, 45, 131.
- v. Hill- Wright, 44, 45,
v. Hoskins, 56, 81.
- v. Laco, 10, 34, 193.
v. McLaren, 131.
v. Morgan, 118.
- v. Steinberger, 131, 136. v. Sutter, 121.
v. Winona, 65.
v. Yost, 75, 189.
General Knit v. Steber, 28, 29. General Subconstruction v. Netcher, 22. George Frost v. Cohn, 200, 208, 209. Georgia v. Billfinger, 22, 115. German-American v. Erdrich, 41, 81.
- v. Loew, 45, 65, 81, 114, 121, 122. Giant Powder v. California Powder, 105. Gibbs v. Hoefner, 39.
Gilbert v. Waltzelham, 22, 52, 116, 193,
200.
Gilmer, see L. H. Gilmer. Gindorff v. Deering, 37, 239. Globe Nail v. Superior, 81, 109.
- v. U. S. Horse Nail, 81, 119, 155. Gloucester Isinglass v. Brooks, 82, 84.
v. Le Page, 65, 75.
Gold, 239.
Gold v. U. S., 77, 107, 139. Golden Gate v. Newark, 75 . Goldie v. Diamond, 30, 33, 119. Goodwin v. Eastman, 26, 42, 90, 93. Goodyear v. Antwerp, 127.
48
TABLE OF CASES.
(References are to Notes.)
v. Berry, 176, 188.
v. Beverley, 141, 142.
v. Blake, 105.
v. Gary, 141.
v. Central Railroad, 90.
v. Davis, 176, 199.
v. Dunbar, 48.
v. Evans, 188.
v. Flagg, 199.
v. Mullee, 195.
v. Preterre, 121.
v. Root, 193.
v. Rust, 188.
v. Smith, 193.
v. Wait, 77, 177, 181, 225.
v. Willis, 193.
Gordon v. Turko-Halvah, 180. Goss v. Cameron, 93. Gottfried v. Bartolomae, 39.
v. Conrad Seipp Brew., 1]0, 115.
v. Crescent Brewing, 22, 81.
- v. Stahlmann, 90.
Gottstein, 240.
Graham v. Johnston, 51, 79, 81.
Grant v. Walter, 10, 20.
Graphic Arts v. Photo, 114.
Grayson, 210.
Greenfield, 225.
Grever v. U. S. Hoffman, 13.
Grier v. Wilt, 10.
Griffith, 169.
Griffith v. Murray, 208.
Groves, 198.
Guarantee v. New Haven Gas Light, 45,
6], 81.
Gunn v. Savage, 80, 90, 92. Gunther, 194. Gutta Percha v. Goodyear, 5, 131.
H.
Haarmann De v. Van Dyk, 131, 179.
Hafely, 223.
Hahn, 239.
Hake v. Brown, 47, 62.
Halfpenny, 239.
Hall v. Ahrend, 83.
Hammerschlag v. Bancroft, 44.
v. Garrett, 80, 109.
— v. Judd, 114.
v. Scamoni, 80, 114.
v. Wichelmann, 90.
v. Wood, 90.
Handy Things v. Dorsey, 131. Hansen v. Slick, 74. Harbeck, 198.
Harris, 67, 71.
Harrisburg v. N. Y., 54, 114, 115, 177.
Harrison, 239.
Haskell v. Perfect, 195.
Hassam Paving v. Consolidated, 5, 45.
Hatch v. Electric Storage, 194.
v. Moffit, 239.
Heald v. Rice, 100. Heath, 193. Hedden v. Eaton, 46. Heide, 187.
Heller v. Bauer, 109.
Hemolin v. Ilarway, 42, 75, 126, 163, 177,
180.
Henderson v. Cleveland, 239. Henry, 157, 223.
Hentschel v. Carthage, 24, 82, 131, 179. Hentz, 236. Hermann, 107. Heroult, 101.
Heroult v. Comr. of Pats., 85. Herr, 218.
Herzog v. Keller, 61, 90, 199. Hess Bright v. Standard, 35. Hewlett v. Steinberger, 136. Hibbard, 43, 159. Hicks, 104.
Hide Ite v. Fiber, 69, 115, 196. Highland v. Schmertz, 43, 64. Hines, 226.
Hitchcock v. American, 34, 44. Hobbie v. Smith, 193. Hobbs v. King, 174. Hodginson, 193.
Hoff v. Iron Clad, 91, 109, 199. Hoffman v. Aronson, 44.
v. Stiefel, 174.
Hogan v. Westmoreland, 16, 92, 198. Hoke Engraving v. Schraubstadter, 176. Holcomb, 43. Holiday v. Pickhardt, 90, 155, 177.
v. Schultz-Berge, 177.
Hollister v. Benedict, 206.
Holmes, 239.
Holstein v. Zeeland, 93.
Holt, 102, 239.
Hood v. Boston, 38, 81V
Hopkinson, 227.
Horn v. Bergner, 8, 42.
Hoskins v. General Elec., 177, 180.
v. Matthes, 184.
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 198. Hotel v. Lorraine, 72, 205. Howe v. Abbott, 63. Howell, 75. Hoyt v. Home, 83. Hubbell v. U. S., 18.
TABLE OF CASES.
49
(References are to Notes.)
Hudson v. Draper, 109, 131.
Hurlburt v. Schillinger, 126, 194.
Huttner v. Knox, 75.
H. W. Johns v. Kobertson, 199.
Hyde, 217.
Hyde v. Minerals, 39, 43, 56, 81, 119.
I.
Imperial v. Stein, 131.
Incandescent Lamp Patent, 190.
Ingersoll, 77.
International Curtis v. Cramp, 172, 173.
International Terra Cotta v. Maurer, 107
International Tooth v. Gaylord, 49.
v. Bennett, 30.
- v. Kyle, 30. Irish v. Knapp, 42.
Ironclad v. Jacob J. Vollrath, 161, 241.
J.
Jackson v. Birmingham, 115.
v. Nichols, 191.
Jacobs v. Baker, 192.
v. Jaeger, 239.
James v. Campbell, 100.
Janin v. Curtis, 137.
Jenkins v. Johnson, 170, 181.
- v. Walker, 81, 177, 193. Jennens, 232.
Jensen v. Clay, 165, 168.
v. Keasbey, 81.
John v. Columbia Cotton, 85. John R. Williams v. Miller, 65, 93. Johnson v. Chisholm, 85.
v. Foos, 40, 42, 121.
v. Hero Fruit Jar, 193.
v. Johnson, 73.
v. Tidewater, 49.
Johnston v. American Heat, 194. Jones v. McMurray, 107, 158.
- v. Merrill, 90, 92.
v. Wetherill, 131, 137.
Junker, 231.
K.
Kahn v. Starrells, 39, 44, 56. Kane v. Huggins, 92, 107. Karfiol v. Rothner, 34, 79.
Katleyer, 67. Kay, 226.
Keasbey v. Philip Carey, 181. Keifer v. Unionwerke, 144. Keith, 239. Kelleher v. Darling, 105, 107.
Kemper, 85.
Kennedy v. Beaver, 30, 75, 77, 109.
v. Solar, 22.
Kennicott v. Holt Ice, 16. Kerr, 215, 239. Kerr v. Hoyle, 28. Keyes v. Grant, 5. Kiefer v. Unionwerke, 10. Kiessele v. Haas, 129, 179.
- v. Kilbourn, 11, 238. Kilbourne v. Bingham, 77. Kimball v. Hess, 93. King v. Anderson, 180, 185.
v. Gallum, 193.
v. Hubbard, 13, 18.
Kintner v. Atlantic, 39, 44, 49. Kintner v. Marconi, 5.
Kirchberger v. Am. Acetelyne, 100, 114,
115.
Kirchner v. Blair, 137. Kirk v. Elgins, 186. Klein v. Park, 47.
— — v. Russell, 69, 77. Knickerbocker v. Eogers, 13. Knight v. Gavit, 14. Knox Rock-Blasting v. Drake, 88. Knudsen, 239. Krell Auto v. Story, 6. Kruh v. Thomas, 70. Krupp, see Fried Krupp. Kuhl v. Mueller, 195. Kupfer v. Westinghouse, 177, 180. Kyle v. Corner, 137.
L.
Ladoff v. Demster, 136.
Lalance and Grosjean v. Habermann, 34,
114, 118, 131. Lamb v. Hamblen, 84. Landenberger, 183. Lane v. Levi, 112. Lange v. McGuin, 90, 92. Latimer, 184. Lauman v. Urschel, 60. Lawley, 227. Lawther v. Hamilton, 66, 77, 128, 140,
148. Lederer v. Walker, 137.
Lee, 225.
Lee v. Upson, 51, 88. Leeds and Catlin v. Victor, 95, 99, 123,
239.
Leggett, 43.
Leggett v. Standard Oil, 105. L. II. Gilmer v. Geisel, 24. T.eightou v. Barker, 137.
50
TABLE OP CASES.
(References are to Notes.)
Le Roy v. Tatham, 10, 15. Lewis v. Cronemeyer, 14, 131.
- v. Semple, 194. Libby v. McKee, 140.
v. Mt. Washington Glass, 77, 86.
Lippincott, 234.
Little, 75, 100. Locke, 193. Locke v. Boch, 131. Lockwood v. Cleveland, 193. v. Cutter, 193.
- v. Hooper, 155, 193, 211.
v. Lockwood, 193.
Loeser, 24.
Loew v. German-American, 79, 123.
Loewenberg, 203.
Lord, 217.
Lovejoy v. Hill, 198.
Lovell v. Gary, 56, 75.
Lowe, 83.
Lowrey v. Cowles, 93.
Lowry, 71.
Lowry v. Cowles, 92.
Ludington Cigarette v. Anargyros, 28.
Lumber v. Nestor, 22, 52, 54.
Lupton, 194.
Luten, 75.
M.
McBerty v. Cook, 131.
McClain, 239.
McClave v. Treadwell, 13.
McClellan, 222.
McClurg v. Kingsland, 34, 37, 42.
McCormick v. Medusa, 45, 149, 181.
McCracken v. Russell, 137.
McDougall, 227, 235.
McEwan v. McEwan, 198.
v. White, 189.
McKay v. Dibert, 103.
v. Jackman, 36.
McKesson v. Carnrick, 87. McKloskey v. Dubois, 159. McKnight v. Pohle, 22, 107, 131. McMahan, 217.
McMurray, 61.
MacArthur v. Simplex, 67, 90. Macbeth Evans v. General Electric, 81,
131.
Maitland v. Gibson, 16. Malignani v. Germania, 44.
v. Hill Wright, 41, 44.
v. Jaseph Marsh, 81, 87, 91, 113.
Manhattan v. Helios Upton, 58, 113. Mann, 30.
Manning v. Cape Ann, 131. Many v. Sizer, 146.
Marchand v. Emken, 50, 83. Marconi v. De Forest, 38, 114.
- v. National, 38, 40.
v. Shoemaker, 77, 131.
Mark v. Greenwalt, 5, 131. Marsden v. Comr. Pats., 193. Marsh v. Dodge, 239. Maryland v. Dorr, 163.
Maryland Hominy v. Baltimore, 47, 163. Mason, 43.
Matheson v. Campbell, 22, 77, 78, 87. Matteawan Mfg. v. Emmons, 31, 90, 92. Matthews v. Iron Clad, 109.
v. Skates, 177. '
v. Stoneberger, 239.
Maule, 74.
Maurer v. Dickerson, 81, 82, 131, 177.
Mayall, 113, 151, 155.
Mayer v. Mutschler, 14.
Melvin v. Thomas Potter, 46.
Merrell v. Natural, 5, 47, 61, 75, 88, 113.
- v. Powdered Milk, 46, 61, 75, 81,
88, 93.
Merrill, 22, 71.
Merrill v. Yosmans, 19, 115, 146. Mershon v. Bay City Box, 239. Metal v. Bradford, 67. Metropolitan Washing v. Earle, 142. Meyer v. Pritchard, 43, 194. Meyer v. Sarfert, 103. Mica Insulator v. Commercial, 34, 97,
114, 135.
v. Union, 46.
Michaelis v. Larkin, 91, 138.
- v. Roessler, 87, 93, 119. Miehle Printing v. Whilock, 173. Miller v. Androscoggin Pulp, 46.
v. Force, 76, 88.
v. Speller, 137.
v Milligan, 194.
Milligan v. Upton, 178. Milner v. Harrison, 4. Milton v. Jordan, 196. Mine v. Braeckel, 14.
Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 34, 57, 81.
v. Miami, 39, 57, 113, 131.
Mississippi v. Pittsburgh, 93. Mitchell v. Connellsville, 10, 15. Model Bottling v. Anheuser, 83, 103. Moeser, 72. Moffitt v. Cavanaugh, 64.
v. Rogers, 64.
Mond v. Commissioner of Patents, 43, 75. Monden v. Curtis, 106. Moody v. Colby, 136. Moore Filter v. Tonopah, 41, 45, 60, 65, 67, 117.
TABLE OF CASES.
51
(References are to Notes.)
Morris, 32.
Morton v. N. Y. Eye, 6, 47, 75.
Mosler v. Lurie, 77.
Mosler v. Mosler, 96, 169, 206, 225.
Motion Picture v. Laemmle, 239.
Moulton, 80, 114.
Moulton v. Com. of Patents, 50, 239.
Mowry v. Whitney, 65, 67, 75, 90, 128.
Mraz, 77.
Munising v. American Sulphite, 86, 126,
176.
Muntz v. Foster, 81. Murmann, 225. Murray, 231.
Muscan Hair v. American, 90, 92. Musgrave v. Comrnr. Patents, 51, 183.
N.
National Chemical v. Swift, 22, 75, 77,
91. - Electric v. Telefunken, 18.
Elec. Signal v. United Wireless,
38, 51, 60.
Enamelling v. N. E., 10, 21, 22,
24, 75, 88, 92, 113, 118, 171, 180,
Filtering v. Arctic Oil, 131, 137.
- Metal v. Flexible Conduit, 44, 45. Newsboard v. Elkhart, 24.
- Phono, v. American, 75, 90, 91, 94, 115.
Phono, v. Lambert, 84.
- Tube v. Spang, 49.
Naylor v. Alsop, 15, 42, 46, 75, 138. Needham v. Washburn, 66. Neidich v. Edwards, 30. Neill v. Comr. Pats., 107. New Process Fermentation v. Baltz, 115. — v. Koch, 11, 75.
- v. Maus, 21, 40, 46, 65, 79, 93. New v. Warren, 100.
N. Y. Asbestos v. Ambler Asbestos, 199.
- Belt v. Magowan, 193, 194. Belt v. N. J., 202.
Belt v. Sierer, 207.
Filter v. Elmira, 44, 114, 118.
Filter v. Jackson, 123.
- Filter v. Jewell, 45. Filter v. Niagara, 114.
Grape Sugar v. Buffalo, 39, 65.
Pharm. v. Tilden, 186.
J- itCVl.111. V. JL J-lVAT^-llj _L<JV/.
Phonograph v. National, 140.
Nimmy v. Comr. Pats., 193.
North American Chemical v. Keno, 26,
75, 161, 180, 197. Northwestern v. Philadelphia, 137.
Norwood, 217.
Novelty v. Brookfield, 14, 21.
O.
Odheimer, 194.
Ohio Varnish v. Glidden, 76, 180.
O'Neill, 225.
O'Reilly v. Morse, 6, 10, 38, 239.
Oriental Tissue v. De Jonge, 177.
— v. Louis, 209.
Orr v. Aschenbach, 24, 200.
Osborne, 229.
Otley v. Watkins, 112.
Oval Wood v. Sandy Creek, 172, 193.
Oxnard, 220.
P.
Pacholder, 239.
Pacific v. Bingham, 42, 66.
v. Soi
Painter, 153.
Palmer v. Lozier, 213.
Panzl v. Battle Island, 180, 181, 234. Parent, 225.
Parham v. American Buttonhole, 239. Parke Davis v. H. K. Mulford, 78, 86,
87, 108, 138, 149, 162, 167, 181. Parsons v. Colgate, 167, 177. Pasteur Chamberlain Filter v. Funk, 177. Paterson, 61. Pease, 196, 238. Peerless Eubber v. White, 199. Pelton Water Wheel v. Doble, 13. Penn Elec. v. Conroy, 101, 239. Penna. v. Cleveland, 49, 75. Peoria Target v. Cleveland, 183. Perkins, 65, 101.
Perkins Glue v. Solva, 47, 125, 163. Peters v. Active, 91.
v. Chicago Biscuit, 43, 52, 77.
Petrie v. De Schweinitz, 131. Pfaudler, 100.
Philadelphia Creamery v. Davis, 109, 190. Philadelphia Eubber v. Portage, 38, 113, 131.
v. U. S., 113.
Phillips, 194, 237. Phillips v. Detroit, 193.
— v. Kochert, 75, 83, 88. Pickhardt v. Packard, 155, 162, 167. Pieper v. S. S. White, 5.
Pike v. Porter, 88. Piper v. Brown, 126. Pittsburgh Iron v. Seaman, 185.
- Eeduction v. Cowles Elec. Smelt., 34, 75, 81, 86, 114, 118.
52
TABLE OF CASES,
(References are to Notes.)
Plastic Fireproof v. City, 207.
— Slate v. Moore, 178, 180, 181. Plumb, 239.
Plummer v. Sargent, 91, 168. Poillon v. Schmidt, 75. Pope v. Clark, 198.
v. McKenzie, 137.
Popenhusen v. N. Y. Gutta, 90. Porter v. Baldwin, 7, 33. Potter v. Tone, 137.
Potthoff v. Hanson, 54, 87, 115.
Powell, 225.
Power v. Proeger, 220.
Powrie, 220, 225.
Pratt, 153.
Pratt v. Thompson, 10, 75, 177.
Pressed Prism v. Continuous, 40, 44, 46,
51, 62, 126, 163. Propfe v. Coddington, 177. Providence Rubber v. Goodyear, 105, 126,
140, 174.
Q-
Queen v. Friedlander, 239. R.
Rajah v. Emil, 194.
Rand McNally v. Exchange Script, 194.
Randall, 227.
Ransome v. Norris, 46.
Rappleye, 229.
Rawson v. Western, 46.
Read Holiday v. Schulze-Berge, 167, 180.
Ready v. Taylor, 131, 195.
Reay v. Berlin and Jones Envelope, 239.
v. Raynor, 239.
Reed v. Roberts, 137.
v. Street, 157, 198.
Reese, 90.
Reichenbach v. Kelly, 13.
Reid, 225.
Rembert v. American, 54, 116. Rembusch v. Bennethum, 194. Renwick v. Pond, 239. Reynolds v. Standard, 207. Rice v. Burt, 71. Rich v. Lippincott, 131. Richardson v. Leidgen, 86. Rickard v. Du Bon, 32. Rider v. Adams, 91. Rietzel v. Harmatta, 101, 106. Riley v. Barnard, 136.
v. Bauman, 131.
Risdon v. Meaart, 10, 92, 153, 159, 239. Riter-Conley v. Aiken, 192.
Ritter v. Atlanta, 83. Roberts v. Dickey, 81, 82.
- v. Roter, 91.
— v. Schreiber, 82, 85, 86, 88, 93,
124.
Rochester v. Schaefer, 50. Rogers, 180. Roehr v. Bliss, 59, 212. Rogers, 8, 10, 153, 196. Rogers v. Ennis, 187. Roloson, 239. Root v. Lamb, 115. Roselius, 153. Rosell v. Allen, 109, 133. Rowe, 99.
Royce v. Fifield, 202. Royden Marble v. Davis, 83, 239. Royer v. Chicago, 22, 82, 177.
- v. Coupe, 24, 152.
— v. Shultz, 109, 128.
v. Willemsen, 189.
R. Thomas v. Electric, 38, 42, 47, 62, 82,
171, 193, 225. Rubber v. India, 50. Rubber Step v. Metropolitan, 195. Ruckrich, 106. Rudd, 67. Rumford v. Hecker, 76, 123, 182.
v. Hygienic, 123.
- v. Lauer, 182.
— v. N. Y., 148, 149, 163. Ruping v. Lowry, 137. Russell, 223.
Russell v. Dodge, 23, 107. Ryan v. Goodwin, 177, 187. K'ynear v. Evans, 212.
S.
Sackett v. Ratkowsky, 193, 194.
Sadtler v. Carmichael v. Smith, 67, 133.
Safety Armorite v. Mark, Go.
St. Louis Stamping v. Quinby, 107.
Salem v. Thomson, 71.
Salts Textile v. Tingue, 38, 90.
Sanche, 6.
Sanders v. Emerson, 137.
Sanford Mills v. Mass. Mohair, 43.
San Francisco v. Beyrle, 30, 47.
Sanitary Street Flushing v. Amsterdam,
12.
Sanitas v. Voigt, 157, 163. Sarfert v. Chipman, 43. Saunders v. Miller, 97. Sawyer v. Edison, 137. Scheckner, 153.
TABLE OF CASES.
53
(References are to Notes.)
Schillinger v. Gunther, 90, 127, 194, 195.
- v. Middleton, 195.
v. Ferine, 194.
Schlicht v. Aeolipyle, 116, 138, 242. Schmertz v. Pittsburgh, 42, 43.
v. Western, 42, 43, 64, 93, 94,
115, 126. Schmidt, 225. Schupphaus v, E. I. Du Pont, 114.
- v. Stevens, 5.
Schwartz v. Housman, 62, 119. Schwarzwalder v. N. Y., 39, 45. Scott, 226.
Schrivener v. Oakland Gas, 101.
Seibert Cyl. Oil Cup v. Harper Steam,
18, 113, 114. Selbers, 153, 159. Sewall v. Jones, 22, 81. Shaefer, 183. Shatters, 106. Shannon, 193. Shannon v. Brunner, 194. Shaw v. Colwell, 45. Sherwood v. Drewson, 137. Shippen, 43, 239. Shuter v. Davis, 193. Sickles v. Falls, 131. Siemund v. Endelin, 83. Silverman v. Hendrickson, 137. Simmonds v. Hathorn, 47. Simmonds Counter v. Young, 24. Simonds, 218. Slade v. Blair, 75, 235. Slingluff v. Bolin, 77, 107.
- v. Sweet, 138. Sloan v. Portland, 177. Smith, 235.
Smith v. Elliott, 157, 193.
v. Goodyear, 193, 198.
v. Murray, 78, 182.
v. Nichols, 207.
- v. Pittsburgh Gas, 66, 90. Smyth, 222.
Snook-Roentgen v. Stetson, 33, 173. Snow v. Tapley, 67.
- v. Taylor, 75. Societe Anon. v. Allen, 209.
Soc. Fabriques v. Luders, 92, 168.
Sommer, 67, 178.
Sovereign v. Lillie, 107.
Spear, 43.
Spencer v. Penna. R. Co., 145.
v. Trafford, 131.
Spill v. Celluloid, 81, 89, 90, 167, 177,
239. Spirella v. Nubone, 83.
Sporting v. Haskell, 194.
Standard Asphalt v. American, 42, 61,
131. Paint v. Bird, 46, 69, 77, 176,
177, 193, 200.
Stead Lens v. Kryptok, 194. Stearns v. Russell, 97, 98. Steel Clad v. Davison, 200.
v. Mayor, 199.
Steiner Fire Extinguisher v. City of
Adrian, 113. Steinmetz, 26, 81, 222. Steinmetz v. Allen, 217. Stemple, 225. Stevens v. Keating, 5, 7.
- v. Seher, 77, 138, 166, 190. Steward V. American Lava, 81, 107. Stilwell v. McPherson, 193. Stimson, 227. Stimson v. Woodman, 239. Stocking, 230.
Stokes v. Heller, 30, 119, 239. Stone v. Pupin, 131. Stow v. Chicago, 189. Strater v. Keyes, 40. Streator v. Wire Glass, 40. Stroh, 227.
Strom v. Weir, 30, 212. Strong, 198.
Strong v. Noble, 25, 195. Stuart, 97.
Stuart v. Auger, 43, 81. Sun Vapor v. Western, 109, 144. Sundh Elec. v. General Elec., 5, 16. Swain v. Ladd, 239. Sydeman v. Thoma, 13, 137.
T.
Taber v. Marceau, 91. Tainter, 225. Talbot v. Monell, 131. Tallmadge, 72, 239. Tannage v. Adams, 88.
v. Donallen, 75.
v. Zahn, 22, 51, 75, 88, 157,
Tarr v. Folsom, 148, 184.
- v. Webb, 183. Taylor, 43.
Taylor v. Archer, 195. Temple, 240. Terry v. Sturtevant, 8. Tesla v. Scott, 58. Thomas, see R. Thomas. Thompson v. Bushnell, 122, 193.
v. Jennings, 200, 201.
Thomson, 226.
54
TABLE OF CASES.
(References are to Notes.)
Thomson Elec. Welding v. Barney, 114, 174.
v. Two Rivers, 40.
Thomson Houston v. Dayton, 118.
v. Salem, 49.
v. Wagner, 70, 92.
Thrall v. Poole, 195. Tibbe v. Missouri, 195.
Tilghman v. Proctor, 26, 41, 48, 86, 126.
v. Morse, 38, 45, 83.
Toch v. Zibell, 81, 131. Todd, 189.
Tompkins v. St. Regis, 66, 75, 90, 131. Tonopah v. Vincent, 68, 94. Townsend v. Thullen, 77. Travers v. American Cordage, 39.
v. Hammock, 92.
Treadwell v. Fox, 14, 131. Treibacher Chemische v. Roessler, 177.
v. Wolf, 92.
Trevette, 11, 228.
Tripler v. Linde, 95, 131, 137.
Truesdell, 153.
Trussed v. Corruated, 24, 200.
Tschirner, 230.
Tuck v. Bramhill, 193.
Tucker v. Rurditt, 91, 105.
v. Corbin, 91.
v. Dana, 104.
v. Sargent, 62, 115.
v. Tucker, 114, 115.
Turner, 72.
Tweedle, 161. Tyler v. Boston, 177. Tymeson, 225. Tyne, 226.
U.
Uhlman v. Arnholdt, 9, 65, 80.
- v. Bartholomae, 81. Underwood v. Gerber, 10, 214. Union Biscuit v. Peters, 52.
Carbide v. Amer. Carbide, 115,
138, 163.
Mfg. v. Lounsbury, 137.
Match v. Diamond, 239.
Paper Bag v. Waterbury, 43, 75.
Paper Collar v. Leland, 202.
Paper Collar v. Van Deusen, 75
204, 207.
. Special v. Singer, 239.
Tubing v. Patterson, 170, 195.
United Indurated v. Whippany, 115, 209. United Nickel v. Anthes, 38, 149, 160.
— v. California, 38, 125, 138, 160.
v. Central Pacific, 127, 149, 160.
v. Harris, 34, 149, 160.
v. Keith, 111, 149, 160.
v. Manhattan, 42, 81, 115, 131,
149, 160.
v. Melchior, 160.
- v. Pendleton, 149, 160, 177. United Shoe v. Greenman, 13.
U. S. Consoll. Seeded v, Selma Fruit, 52, 239.
Electric v. Edison, 84.
and Foreign v. Merrimack, 183.
Frumentum v. Lanhoff, 44, 120,
126.
Glass v. Atlas, 44, 91.
Hoffman v. Becker, 18.
Metallic v. Hewitt, 199.
Mineral v. Manville, 84.
Mitis v. Carnegie, 42, 44, 52, 131.
Mitis v. Midvale, 88, 113, 131.
— Repair v. Assyrian, 71, 90.
- Repair v. Standard, 49, 88, 116. United Tunnel v. Interborough, 49. Universal v. Willimantic, 135. Universal Brush v. Sonn, 24, 41, 49, 91.
V.
Vacuum Cleaning v. Innovation, 13. Vacuum Oil v. Buffalo, 105. Vaile v. Buckeye Iron, 51. Van Camp v. Maryland Pavement, 146. Van Deusen v. Nellis, 207. Vermont v. Gibson, 38, 80, 123, 143. Very, 225.
Victor Talking v. Am. Gramophone, 42 47, 65, 90, 103, 219.
v. Am. Graphophone, 168.
— v. Duplex, 96, 114, 115.
v. Hoschke, 95, 98.
v. Sonora, 95.
Vinton v. Hamilton, 83.
Vollrath v. Comstock, 177.
Voorhees Rubber v. McDonell, 16, 199.
W.
Wagner, 93. Walker, 227. Wall v. Leek, 45. Wallace v. Noyes, 64, 160. Wallerstein v. Christian, 5.
- v. Liebmann, 45, 88, 114. Walrath v. Pacific, 93. Warren v. Dodge, 93.
v. Evans, 86, 113.
v. Grand Rapids, 5.
v. Montgomery, 92, 162, 181.
TABLE OF CASES.
55
(References are to Notes.)
v. N. Y., 180, 381.
- v. Owosso, 86, 162, 180, 181. Warren Featherbone v. American, 65. Waterbury Brass v. Miller, 97, 162, 174. Waterman, 46.
Waterman v. Thomson, 75, 82. Watson v. Stevens, 47. Weber, 36. Weida, 180. Weierman v. Shaw, 10. Weintraub v. Hewitt, 18, 70, 137. Welch, 61, 107. Welling v. Crane, 183, 187. v. Le Bau, 130, 176.
v. Rubber Coated, 146, 198, 199.
Wells v. Hegaman, 14.
_ — Glass v. Henderson, 30, 239. Welsbach, 183. Welsbach v. American, 93, 131.
v. Cosmopolitan, 27.
v. Incandescent, 146.
- v. Rex, 193.
v. Sunlight, 93.
Werner, 221.
Western Elec. v. Ansonia Brass, 76, 77,
163.
Western Glass v. Schmertz, 7, 61, 90, 91, 126 .
- Mineral v. Globe, 113.
- Tube v. Rainear, 198. Westinghouse Elec. v. Allis, 33, 71.
v. Beacon, 40, 82.
v. Dayton, 58, 65, 102, 122.
v< Electric, 58, 96.
- v. Montgomery, 78, 85, 92, 115.
- v. N. E. Granite, 58. v. Orange, 115.
v. Roberts, 115.
v. Saranac, 81, 115.
— v. Stanley, 58, 95, 115.
- v. Sutter, 114, 131.
v. Toledo, 114.
v. Wagner, 123.
Weston, 11, 35.
Westrumite Co. v. Lincoln Park, 90, 92.
Wetherell, 41.
Wetherill v. N. J. Zinc, 111, 127.
Wheat, 234.
Wheeler, 81.
Wheeler v. Simpson, 239. Whippary v. United, 92. White, 43, 102. White v. Dunbar, 107. Whitman v. King, 131, 137. Whitney v. Emmett, 17. Wickelman v. A. B. Dick, 84. Wickers, 43. Wickers v. Albert, 133.
v. McKee, 133, 137.
v. Upham, 133, 137.
Wickwire v. Wire, 1 1G. Wilcox v. Bookwalter, 65. Williams, 222, 225. Wilson, 235. Wilson v. Ellis, 90, 190, 191.
v. Hunter, 71, 90.
Wing v. Anthony, 100. Wintherlich, 231, 244. Wohltmann, 227.
Wolff v. E. I. Du Pont, 42, 75. Woltereck, 90. Wonson v. Gilman, 177.
v. Peterson, 107, 177.
Wood v. Cleveland, 123.
v. Duncan, 90.
v. Kahn, 75, 88.
v. Underbill, 77.
Woodward v. Morrison, 181. Wooster v. Calhoon, 159. Wooten, 105, 107. Worley v. Loker, 131. Wright, 43.
Wurts v. Harrington, 137. Wyeth v. Stone, 17. Wynne, 224.
Y.
Young, 226, 239.
Young v. Burley, 83, 88, 131.
Z.
Zabel, 227. Zan v. Quong, 144. Zimmerman v. Advance, 43, 90. Zinsser v. Kremer, 61.
v. Krueger, 75.
Zwietusch v. Stockheim, 137.
INDEX.
(The References are to Pages.)
Abandonment, 23. Accidental, 20. Added step, 27. Adulterant, 7, 10. Affidavits, 22. Aggregation, 1C. Alloy, 34. Alternative, 41. Amendments, 23, 31. Analogous, 39. Analogous material, 17. Analogous steps, 19. Analysis, 34. Anticipation, 18. Apparatus, see ' ' Machine. ' ' Application, 23, 39. Artificial, 35.
B.
E.
Electricity 14, 16.
Empirical, 26, 31.
Equivalents, 21, 22, 32, 33, 35.
Error, 20, '25.
Evidence, 6, 28.
Experiment, 5, 19, 30.
Experimenting, 35.
Expert testimony, see "Evidence."
Failures, 29. Foreign, 22. Functional, 41.
Hand process, 14.
P.
H.
Bookkeeping, 16. Broadening, 24. Business method, 16, 38. By-product control, 10, 35.
C.
Cases, table of, 43. Claims, 7, 8, 24, 25, 30, 37, 40, 41, 42. Coating, 22. Completing process, 27. Composition, 25, 35, 37, 41. Continuing applications, 24. Courts, 8. Crystaline, 32.
D.
Damages, 28. Definitions, 7, 32. Degree, 11, 13, 34. Demurrer, 22. Description, 18. Detail description, 9. Disclosure incomplete, 27. Division, 39, 40. Division, corrected, 20. Drawing, 40. Double patenting, 23.
Identity, 16, 23, 39. Industrial value, 7. Infringement, 26, 27, 28, 37. Injunction, 22. Instrument, 5. Integral, 39. Interference, 29, 36, 40.
J.
Joint invention, 10.
Licenses, 30. Limitations, 9.
L.
M.
Machine, 39.
Machine made, 39.
Machine patent, 23.
Manufacture, 36, 37.
Means, 23.
Mental cooperation, 5.
"Method," 8.
Method, 23.
Method electrical, 24.
Moving picture as evidence, 29.
58
N.
New discovery, 33. New material, 20. New matter, 24, 42. New step, 12, 13, 27.
O.
Omitting step, 25. Operation, 5. Operativeness, 40.
P.
(The
INDEX.
References are to Pages.)
Paper patent, 18. Patentability, 5. Patent Office, 39. Physical differences, 34. Practice, office, 39. ''Predetermined," 15. Preposterous, 10. Prior art, 22, 38. Process, 39, and passim. Product, 5, 12, 15, 32, 39. Proof, see " Evidence. " Properties, 35. Purer, 32.
R.
Reducing to practice, 29. References, 35.
"Regulated," 15. Reissue, 23, £4, 26. Result, 31. Revolutionary, 10, 11, 21.
Secret use, 27.
Sequence, 11, 12, 15, 16.
Specification, 8, 9, 16, 18, 27, 37, 38, 42.
Step, new, 12, 27.
Step substitute, 13.
Sub process, 40, 41.
Suggestion, 29.
Synthetic, 25.
T.
Temperature control, 15. Testimony, see "Evidence." Textile patents, 10. Theory, 14, 25, 37. Tickets, 37, 38. Transposition of material, 11.
U.
Unattainable, 33.
"Use," 31, 42.
Utility, 7, 10, 20, 32, 34, 36, 42.
W.
material, 17.
-*» -DXiXiUW
JUN 191934 JUL 2« {337
f'Ji/fr 9
(la
372 J 84
-
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY