PATENTS. 



675 



ferred to the famous "Webster patent upon one 

 feature of weaving Brussels carpet. The patent 

 .-ranted in 1872, and a special company 

 with a capital of $200.000 was formed to liti- 

 gate it. The present suit occupied four years. 

 1^74 to 1878, before the final hearing in the 

 United States Circuit Court was reached, where 

 the patent was decided to be invalid. On ap- 

 peal the United States Supreme Court upheld 

 the patent and ordered an accounting. Two 

 years were devoted to it, and two tons of 

 books and documents were eventually pro- 

 duced. The claim presented by the Webster 

 Loom Company was .<2^.7-j",000. On cross- 

 examination of the president of the company 

 the claim was reduced to $1,500.000. His 

 testimony embraced nearly 6,300 questions and 

 extended over two years. In the final argu- 

 ment before the master eleven days were occu- 

 pied and over 1,000 pages of briefs were handed 

 him. His decision practically threw out the 

 patent in suit as an element of damages. The 

 Waster Company were awarded nothing. The 

 most eminent counsel were retained in tli 

 which passes into history as one of the most 

 famous patent litigations of America. 



The Bell telephone patent at last reached the 

 Supreme Court on appeal, five cases being con- 

 solidated into one for the purposes of the hear- 

 ing. The court upheld the patent in its broad- 

 est scope, so that all electric speaking telephones 

 are covered by it. A minority opinion repre- 

 senting the views of three out of seven judges 

 was delivered as against the patent, in favor of 

 the claims of priority of Daniel Drawbaugh. 

 Meanwhile the suit brought by the Govern- 

 ment for the cancellation of the Bell telephone 

 patent of 1876 is slowly progressing. On a de- 

 murrer it reached the Supreme Court, and the 

 Government's right to bring such a suit was 

 upheld (see " Official Gazette " of the United 

 States Patent-Office" xlv, 1,311). 



A very important decision of the U. S. Su- 

 preme Court was rendered in the suit entitled 

 Bate Refrigerating Company against George 

 II. Hammond & Co. A United States patent 

 had been awarded to John J. Bate for a process 

 of preserving meat, and previous to the issue 

 of his American patent he had taken out a 

 Canadian patent for five years. Although by 

 due payment of fees he had kept the Canadian 

 patent alive for fifteen years, it not having as 

 yet expired, it was claimed that the American 

 patent was limited in duration to the first pe- 

 riod of five years of the Canadian patent. The 

 Supreme Court decided otherwise, and held 

 that as long as the Canadian patent was ex- 

 tended it was without etfect upon the Ameri- 

 can franchise. It did not state, however, that 

 if the Canadian fees had not been paid, and 

 the foreign patent had expired after five years. 

 that such expiration would not have limited 

 the American patent. It left it to be inferred 

 that it would have had that effect. 



Foreign Laws. For changes or new legislation 

 in, or recent publication of foreign patent 



law?, the following references to the "Official 

 Gazette" of the United States Patent-Office 

 are given : The Congo Free State, xlii, 202 ; 

 Guatemala, xlii, 830; Germany, xliii, 889; 

 British India, xliii. 1,588; South African Re- 

 public, xliv. l.;Vi7; South Australia, xliv, 1.510; 

 Switzerland, xlv, 233 and 1,070; Ne\v South 

 Wales, xlv. 128. 



Court Derisions. Abstracts of some of the 

 more important points decided in the Federal 

 courts are given below, the references being 

 to volume and page of the " Official Gaz 



The mere fact that a person sells an article to which 

 a patented device may be attached docs not make him 

 an infringer, provided the article is not so construct- 

 ed that the patented device and no other can be used 

 with it. Bliss ft al. ts. Merrill it 7., xlii. V7. 



Where one patentee has invented a combination for 

 a particular purpose, the field is open to another to in- 

 vent a combination of the same parts differently ar- 

 ranged and affecting the same result bv a different 

 mode of operation. Railway Register ifanufacturing 

 Company vs. Third Avenue "Railway Company it < 7.". 

 xlii. 379* 



The omission of one step of an old process with an 

 improved result constitutes a new process. Lawther 

 vs. Hamilton ft a/., xlii, 487. 



Where the new process requires greater care, or 

 even greater skill, on the part of the workmen than 

 formerly, it does not change its character as a process 

 or materially affect its utility. Ibid. 



A patent sufficiently describes a process when by 

 the aid of the knowledge derived from the state of 

 the art the same may be carried out from the descrip- 

 tion in the patent by those skilled in the particular 

 manufacture. Ibid. " 



A claim for a process consisting of several steps 

 mav be limited by the state of the art and the de- 

 scription in the patent to the instrumentalities or 

 their equivalents as thus described, which arc 

 tial in the carrying out of the process claimed. Ibid. 



In claims for combinations it is unnecessary to in- 

 clude any element except such as are essential to the 

 peculiar'combination and affected by the invention. 

 Rapid Service Store Railway Company rs. Taylor ft 

 a/., xlii. m. 



A reconstruction of a machine so that a less num- 

 ber of parts will perform all the functions of the great- 

 er may be invention of a high order ; but the on 

 of a part with a correspond ing omission in function, 

 so that the retained parts do just what they did before 

 in the combination, can not be other than a mere mat- 

 ter of judgment, depending upon whether it is desir- 

 able to have the machine do all or less than it did be- 

 fore. McClain cf. A. Ortmayer fe Sons ft aL. xlii. 724. 



Where notice is not given in the answer of a speci- 

 fied prior use of the invention described in the patent, 

 it can not be set up as an anticipation of such in- 

 vention; but, as exhibiting the state of the art, the 

 evidence is competent to aid the court in putting 

 a proper construction on the patent. Stevenson i's. 

 Magowan et a/., xlii, 1,063. 



A fraudulent surreptitious purchase or construction 

 or use of an invention prior to the application for a 

 patent probably would not affect the rights of the 

 patentee under" this section of the act of "1839. An- 

 drews (t al. rs. Hovey, xlii, 1 . 



After a patent has been granted for an article de- 

 scribed or made in a certain way the inventor can not 

 afterward obtain a valid patent on an independent 

 application for the method or process of making the 

 article in the way described in the earlier patent. 

 The M osier Safe a'nd Lock Company is. Mosler, Bah- 

 mann & Company, xliii, 1,115. 



It is not material whether the foreign patent is 

 granted to the inventor who made the application in 

 this country or to some other person to whom he has 



