1895 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



357 



"Eh? oh: That horse and cart is the prop- 

 erty of the paper I represent— the Pacific Rurat 

 Press — best agricultural paper on the coast; 

 only 82.00 per year; circula — " 



"But that hoss," said I, "what's the pedi- 

 gree? Whafs the name of the animal, any 

 way?" 



"Well, gentlemen,'" said Mr. P., "she's a 

 strong-minded animal, and her name is Susan 

 B. Anthony. Her pedigree is from away back. 

 She's the missing link between the donkey and 

 the giraflfe." 



We all gathered around Susan B., and ad- 

 mired 1 he various points of interest; and a snap 

 shot will enable the more expert horseman to 

 judge the ancient dame. 



THE 



DIVISIBLE - BROOD - C H AMBER IDEA 

 WHOSE PROPERTY IS IT 1 



AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION ON PATENTS AND 

 PATENT DECISIONS. 



As announced in our last issue, we give space 

 to both Mr. Heddon and Mr. Danzenbaker to 

 reply to statements on pages 267,268. Neither 

 one has seen galley-proofs of the articles in 

 this number, and so both stand on an equal 

 footing, i desire, above all things, to give both 

 an equal and perfectly fair hearing. To let one 

 reply to either one of the two articles in the 

 present issue, and not the other, would be hard- 

 ly fair; but as either one in a very large mea- 

 sure covers the points advanced by the other in 

 this issue, it seems to me that further replies 

 are unnecessary — at least in our columns; and 

 I feel very sure that Mr. Heddon will grant 

 space to Mr. Danzenbaker. if he so requests it. 

 in his own paper, for the further discussion of 

 the matter. As the latter's article came first 

 we give it first. It is as follows: -. 



Editor Gliy tilings:— J hare neither time nor incli- 

 nation for needless discussion, and I had hoped the 

 world was wide enough for Mr. Heddon and the 

 rest of us; but as he talks titles, laws, courts, and 

 the sberitt', I desire the privilege of defending' my 

 position. 



Mr. Heddon says: "My patent covers a divisible 

 brood-chamber, used as and for the purposes speci- 

 fied in said patent." These purposes specitled are 

 the same as have been time and again written in 

 bee-journals (by himself), in his ciixrular and book; 

 there is no mistaking- it, and no g-etting around it. 

 Dear reader, sometimes good men are honestly 

 wrong. Two locomotives can not pass each other 

 on a single track, and we can't both be rig-ht. The 

 unsupported word of either of us can be weighed 

 by all intelligent readers at their own estimate. 



If friend Kambler, and others whom it may con- 

 cern, will refer to the flies of record in the U s. 

 Patent Otfiee. showing- the history of Mr, Heddon's 

 case, they will And that he was not the Hrst to in- 

 vent and patent a multiple or divi.sible-brood cham- 

 ber hive, and has no legal or moral right to support 

 his threats of prosecutv>n, as he was informed at 

 the time, when applying- for his patent, in which he 

 made a broad claim as follows: "7. In a bee-hive, a 

 brood-rhanitier constructed of two or more horizon- 

 tal, separable, and interchangeable sections," This 

 clear-cut claim shows plainly his purpose; but it 

 was rejected, with all of his ten claims except the 

 3d, by the Patent Ollice. as being nld undconnndn 

 rights, and ivere dropiicd by his attorneys, and he 



was restricted to limited and combined claims, as 

 title-deeds are made subject to existing- incum- 

 brances. The Patent OfHce, by these limitations, 

 e.xpressly reserved what it had already gianted to 

 others. Mr. Heddon had to confine his claims to a 

 construction of bottom-board, break-joint honey- 

 board, and a case with thumbscrews through its 

 sides, and cleats in the opposite corners, expressly 

 limited, showing that the cases, cleats, frames, and 

 screws, all old and common, were combined to ef- 

 fect his purpose, which defines and limits him to 

 using these things as described, but does not pre- 

 vent others from using any of them in other ways 

 for the same purpose; and he is debarred from in- 

 terfering with others using what the records of his 

 own case show were denied him, and yielded abso- 

 lutely by him at the time of his application. Nu- 

 merous and recent decisions of the Supreme Court 

 can be cited, showing the fallacy of Mr. Heddon's 

 pretensions, as in the two cases below: 



Sargent vs. Hall Safe and Lock Co. 

 lU U. S,, Judge Bhiteliford. 



"In patents, for combinations of mechanisms, lim- 

 itations imposed by the inventor, especially such as 

 were introduced into an application after it, had 

 been persistently rejected, must be strictly con- 

 strued (7S against the inventor and in favor of the 

 puhlic, and looked upon as in the nature of dis- 

 claimers," 



In case Keystone Bridge Co. vs. Phoenix Iron 

 Co, 95 U, S,, 279, S. C. said: "As patents are pro- 

 cured 6.r par-fe, the i)ublic is not bound by them; 

 but the patentees are, and the latter can not show 

 that their inventions are brooder than the terms of 

 their claims; or if broader, they must be held to 

 have surrendered the surplus to the public." 



What if Mr. Martin does say, " In making my 

 frame close fitting, and also to the case, the combi- 

 nation is clearly an infringement upon the Heddon 

 claim"? If Mr. Heddon had such claim (but the 

 history of his case shows clearly and distinctly that 

 it was denied him, as old and a common right), neither 

 Mr. Heddon nor myself have been allowed to fence 

 it off from the public, and we can not honestly 

 claim it. 



Mr. Heddon's objections to the sheet-metal lining 

 and frame support have never been made by others 

 who have seen my hive. This sheet metal does not 

 warp, shrink, nor swell, and is covered over be- 

 tween the uprights and cases, insuring a uniform 

 bee-space, with slack enough to press lightly 

 against the uprights, and yielding enoue-h to avoid 

 jamming, if the frames swell. This end play is a 

 decided advantage over the Heddon hive. They 

 can not be glued to the case by the bees, and are 

 easier to empty than a T super when full of either 

 frames or sections. I first made and used it in 

 place of the T supers, having never seen a Heddon 

 hive until several months after I got my patent, al- 

 though I had .seen the drawings. 



If Mr. Heddon's claim did cover the close fitting 

 of the upright to the case, my hive would not in- 

 terfere with that claim as they do not touch the 

 case at all, but rest and bear against the metal sup- 

 p<n-t that hangs upon the case, and it can be used in 

 other styles of hives. My claim is a broad one, 

 without limitations, as I am at this date the first 

 inventor of it. No set-screws are needed to secure 

 the frames tight and solid in position, as they can 

 now be carried bottom side up if need be, and they 

 can be wedged up or set free with a plain gouge 

 chisel, with half a turn of the wrist. 



While apparently resembling the Heddon hive, 

 mine does not use his style of frame or section. It 

 is furnished with the exact style of top and bottom 

 barred brood-frames and the nrize sections, oblong 

 in shape, used by Capt, J. E. Hetherington, of Cher- 

 ry Valley. N. Y.," which, after a careful test, I find 

 the best in use, as 2.5 per cent more of them will go 

 on the same hive-space, and they sell for 5 to 10 per 

 cent more in market. Mr. Martin says such hives 

 are well adapted to California, and he writes me 

 that he likes my ten frames and sections better 

 than the longer and shallower sections, irrespective 

 of any claims as to infringements. 



Mr. Heddon puts much stress on "the state of 

 the art to which an invention belongs at the time 

 that invention was made must be considered in 

 construing any claim for that Invention." When 

 he invokes tliis, let him not forget that nine of his 

 ton claims were rejected a.s idd, and common rights, 

 and his patent is only a combination of cases, cleats, 

 screws, frames, sections, all old. Where is the in- 

 vention ? 



