448 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUEE. 



June 1. 



an intention to foitify liiniself witli the opinion of 

 a " paid attorno}''," in view of tlie preceding- and 

 succeeding i)a,ragraplis of his article. Snrely he 

 will not insult the intelligence of the reader by 

 offering- the opinion of a paid attorney in support of 

 his case! 



Mr. Heddon charges me with misleading state- 

 ments and mistakes, and not only fails to support 

 his charges in a single instance, but in an effort to 

 make out a case of error on my part he is liimself 

 guilty of what he imputes to me. He says, " If Mr. 

 W. knew aught of the state of our art he never 

 would have mentioned 'top ciwers.' " I challenge 

 Mr. H. to point out the place where I used this ex- 

 pression. On the contrary, I used the phrase "top 

 or cover;" and as Mr. Heddon's patent sneciflcation 

 uses this exact phrase, he will probably not insist 

 that such phrase is an inappropriate one, and con- 

 clusive evidence that the user thereof is unacquaint- 

 ed with the nomenclature of the art. If Mr. H. 

 could not read these three small words aright, it is 

 little wonder that he falls into grievous error in 

 endeavoring to understand and apply the principles 

 of that branch of legal science which has been 

 characterized a* the " metaphysics of the law." 



In stating in his flftli paragraph tliat tlie claim 

 rejected by the Patent Office and dropped by his 

 attornej' is covered by the last eight words of liis 

 claim 5, "substantially as and for the purposes set 

 forth," he displays gross ignorance of patent law, 

 and shows tliat he has not read the "great authority 

 Walker " as faithfully as one should, who assumes 

 to instruct and criticise others in patent matters. 

 This fifth claim of Heddon's patent contains a good 

 deal more than the eight words referred to, and 

 whether or not he can ignore or omit parts thereof 

 to suit his fancy will be made apparent by the fol- 

 lowing extract from the "great authority Walker," 

 section 349: 



"A combination is an entirety. If one of its ele- 

 ments is omitted, the thine- claimed disappears. 

 Ever.y part of the combination claimed is conclu- 

 sively presumed to be material to the combination, 

 and no evidence to the contrary is admissible in any 

 case of alleged infringement." 



If Mr. H.'s mode of construing- claims by leaving 

 out limitations to suit the exigencies of the case is 

 sound, then, logically, he can cut out every thing 

 but the words "a bee substantially as and for the 

 purpose set forth." and thus be in a position to 

 charge the bees themselves with infringement of 

 his rights! 



I also invite Mr. Heddon's attention to section 180 

 of Vvalker, which reads as foUojys: "It is well 

 known that the terms of the claim in letters-patent 

 are carefully scrutinized in the Patent Office. Over 

 this part of the specification the chief contest gen- 

 erally arises. It defines what the Office, after a full 

 examination of previous inventions and the state 

 of the art, determines the applicant entitled to. 

 The courts, therefore, should be careful not to en- 

 large by construction the claim which the Patent 

 Office has admitted, and which the patentee has 

 acquiesced in, beyond tlie fair interpretation of its 

 terms." C. J. Williamson. 



Washington, D. C, May ,8. 



[Mr. Heddon replies as follows:] 



INrRINGEMENT. 



Editor Oleaninfis :— As a rejoinder to attorney Wil- 

 liamson's adjoining article, it may not be out of 

 place for me to say that 1 have not and never have 

 had any ill feeling toward the gentleman, nor is it 

 casting any reflection upon his character, as he 

 would make believe, to state that he, being a paid 

 attornej', dealing with law rather than fact, uses 

 fancy to carry the case of his client. Mr. William- 

 son must not forget that most bee-keepers have at- 

 tended circuit court, and know that tlie spirit of 

 legal work is to leave no kind of stone unturned to 

 advance the interest of the client. I feel that I 

 must compliment attorney Williamson upon his 

 ingenuity in endeavoring to make a case without 

 any material. 



Does it not .seem strange that my quotations from 

 Walker should be called " irrelevant," and " mis- 

 statements," by the learned attorney ? I quoted 

 them word for word;, and if they are irrelevant, 

 would not your readers know it, without the gentle- 

 man telling them ? and if not, of what use is his 

 bald assertion, without any explanation, in Mr. 

 Danzenbaker's case ? 



Mr. W. thinks my interest is great because I sell 



individual rights for i.5.00 each. Perhaps so. I 

 liave sold over oOO such rights, and perhaps a hun- 

 di-ed counties at $26.00 each; and after nine years 

 Mr. Danzenbaker seems to have discovered the 

 value of the products of my labor, and at once em- 

 ployed an attorney to see if there was not a flaw in 

 my title by which he might jump my claim. 



As to pitent law in equity, attorney Williamson 

 did say there was no such law; but now, having dis- 

 covered his mistake, he seems to admit that there is. 

 He says I do not explain of what use equity is to 

 me. twill endeavor to explain: Equity -will undo 

 and set aside every citation from patent law that 

 Mr. Williamson has brought up in all he has written. 

 It will examine the state of the art ten years ago, 

 and give to me all that is mine. In other words, if 

 Mr. Danzenbaker, aided by his able attorney, should 

 be able to find a weakness in the title to my proper- 

 ty, equity, as the word indicates, at once comes to 

 my protection. For positive proof of the foregoing, 

 I refer you to Walker's text-book, edition of 1885, 

 page 401. This shows that my former statement, 

 denied by Mr. W., is absolutely correct, and that 

 alone clinches my entire argument, because that 

 court of equity in patent law, established In 1870. 

 will give me what is mine; and I call the learned 

 attorney's attention to the fact that the brightest 

 and best-posted bee-keepers all over the country- 

 men who know vastly more of the past and present 

 state of the art that any patent-lawyer would know 

 — pronounced my invention startlingly new, unique, 

 and original. Talk all you may of the technicalities 

 of my title, and yet bee-keepers know that the 

 Danzenbaker hive is nothing more nor less than an 

 infringement of my invention, and that, if he wants 

 to use his sheet-tin rest, lie should use it indepen- 

 dently of my divisible brood-chamber, and frames 

 closely fitting each other and the case. I am daily in 

 i-eceipt of letters from bee-keepers with whom Mr. 

 Danzenbaker is corresponding, and in nearly all 

 cases they send me his letters to them. These 

 letters lay special stress upon the advantages of the 

 special functions of my hive, but not one line have 

 I yet seen concerning a single feature claimed in 

 the Danzenbaker patent. I respect the Danzen- 

 baker patent, although I consider it upon worthless 

 devices; but whether worthless or not, I should 

 keep my hands off'. 



Attorney Williamson knows so little about our art 

 that he misunderstood me regarding " top-covers." 

 I had no reference to the way he used the words, but 

 the signiHi-ant fact that he said anything about 

 covers itt <iU. Bee-keepers will understand me. Re- 

 garding his quotations from Walker, they are fully 

 answered and annulled by those 1 previously quot- 

 ed in this journal, and found in my circular to bee- 

 keepers. But, laying this all aside, the patent court 

 of equity, the existence' of which Mr. Williamson 

 undertook to deny, will set tlicsi- all aside, and give 

 to me what is mine. This, Mr. Williamson can no 

 longer deny. Nearly every well-read bee-keeper 

 knows better than does Mr. Williamson, what be- 

 longs to me. The learned attorney excels the bee- 

 keeper only in the matter of legal titles. 



I hardly think tliat my opi)onent should be proud, 

 and " feel flattered," because I admit that he knows 

 more about the legality of patent deeds, and their 

 fitness to the property they intend to cover, than 

 should a.ibee-keeper who has made patent law only 

 a side-issue study. However, when I received proof 

 of his subjoined article I discovered at once that I 

 needed no patent-attorney to wipe out his argu- 

 ments as a July sun would melt a snowball. But 

 let me again compliment Mr. Williamson by stating 

 that he has no ease, as he evidently knows, and that, 

 bee-keepers of intelligence are all against him and 

 his client; knowing, first, that the Danzenbaker hive 

 has no merit except as it incorporates my special 

 features, and that, after so doing, his changes and 

 additions nearly ruin the hive. But you may rest 

 assured, Mr. Editor, it will not be long before this 

 court of equity will be tried, and I will endeavor to 

 substantiate every claim I have made. 



Please allow me to refer to the Train, Terry, and 

 Harris patents, as cited by you in a former Issue. 

 In these patents, as in all others.it is a divisible 

 hive and not a divisible hrood-chamher, for specified 

 purjioses, that is referred to. We have always used 

 divisible Jiives, but not divisible brood chambers, as 

 specified in my patent. Mr. Danzenbaker said truly 

 that fa.ther Langstrotli was robbed, but that I had 

 nothing to be robbed of. That is just what they 

 said when they were robbing Langstroth. How per- 

 fectly history repeats itself ! James Heddon. 



Dowagiac, Mich. 



