650 



PATENTS. 



1876. Both were on demurrer. See "Official 

 Gazette," xxxvii, 1,237; and xli, 123, for text 

 of decisions. Meanwhile no decision has been 

 rendered by the United States Supreme Court 

 in the five appealed cases in which arguments 

 from all points of attack were made against the 

 same patent. The patent expires by natural 

 limitation in the beginning of 1893. The corre- 

 sponding patent has been canceled in Austria 

 as far as reference to telephones is concerned. 

 The court found that it embodied scientific 

 principles which are unpatentable by the Aus- 

 trian law. A decision handed down by the 

 United States Supreme Court on Nov. 14 de- 

 clares the famous driven-well patent, granted 

 to Nelson W. Green, to be invalid on account 

 of prior use, and the decision was confirmed 

 on a later motion for a rehearing of the case. 

 A Circuit Court decision by Judge Shiras in 

 Iowa, rendered about the beginning of Jan- 

 uary, 1888, declares the equally famous barbed- 

 wire-fence patent, No. 157,124, granted to J. 

 F. Glidden, invalid on account of prior use. 

 The latter case has been appealed to the Su- 

 preme Court. These two decisions mark the 

 extinction of very important interests. Im- 

 mense suras of money had been spent on liti- 

 gating them, and, although they are now an- 

 nulled practically, they have in their life filled 

 an important place in the history of inventions. 

 An important action in extending a patent has 

 been taken by Congress. The Forty-ninth 

 Congress granted a petition of Mrs. Henrietta 

 H. Cole, of New York, authorizing an exten- 

 sion of her patent for a fluting-macliine, dated 

 June 12, 1866. It had expired in 1883. The 

 Commissioner of Patents, after hearing evi- 

 dence, granted an extension of seven years from 

 June 12, 1883. This is a very rare grant under 

 the present system. When the term of patents 

 was extended from a limit of fourteen to one 

 of seventeen years, it was thought that exten- 

 sions, formerly provided for in the statutes, 

 would no longer be needed. 



Revised Classification of Inventions. The revised 

 classification of inventions will be found sum- 

 marized in the supplement to the " Official Ga- 

 zette" of Jan. 4, 1887, xxxvii, 1. It also gives 

 the names of the chief examiners. 



Court Decisions. Below will be found a few 

 points made in court decisions during the year 

 1887. The references are to volume and page 

 of the " Official Gazette " of the United States 

 Patent-Office : 



Construction of Patents, There may be many ways 

 of effecting a desired result, but every patent must 

 rest upon" its mechanical devices therefor. Steam 

 Gauge and Lantern Company vs. St. Louis Eailway 

 Supplies Manufacturing Company, xxxviii, 107. 



Matter Excluded by Amendment. A patentee having, 

 in compliance with the requirements of the Patent- 

 Office, excluded by amendment certain matter from, 

 his original specification, is not at liberty to insist 

 upon a construction of his patent, which will include 

 what he was expressly required to abandon and dis- 

 avow in it. (In Supreme Court). Sutter vs. Eobin- 

 son, xxxviii, 230. 



Effect of English Patent on Duration of United States 



Patent, Fourteen years is the term of an English pat- 

 ent, and, although said patent ceases to be in force 

 after three years from its date, if the stamp-duty is 

 not paid, it only operates by limitation upon an after- 

 granted United States patent as a patent for fourteen 

 years. Pallard vs. Bruno, xxxviii, 900. 



Combination Claims to be valid must coyer Operative 

 Constructions. Where a claim in a patent is for a com- 

 bination of several elements, and it appears in evi- 

 dence that the combination is inoperative without the 

 addition of another element, such claim is void. Tar- 

 rant vs. Duluth Lumber Company, xxxix, 1,425. 



Public Use. A use of an invention prior to applica- 

 tion can not be considered experimental when the 

 subsequent completion of the invention added nothing 

 to its patentable quality. International Tooth-Crown 

 Company vs. Kichmond et al., xxxix, 1,550. 



Construction of Claims. Claims must be construed 

 by the language which the patentee has employed in 

 his specification, not by that which he might have em- 

 ployed. Patent Clothing Company vs. Glover, xl, 

 1,135. 



Evidence to prove Priority of Invention. To antedate 

 a patent by evidence of an earlier machine such evi- 

 dence must be very clear and precise to overcome the 

 presumptions arising from the grant of the patent. 

 Osborn vs. Glazier, xl, 1,137. 



Description of Process in Application, Description of 

 a process in an application for a machine patent does 

 not constitute nn abandonment or dedication to the 

 public of such process, so as to estop the inventor from 

 subsequently obtaining a patent for the process if ap- 

 plied for in two years. Eastern Paper Bag Company 

 vs. Standard Paper Bag Company, xli, 231. 



Effect of Limitation Imposed by Patent-Office, It is 

 wholly irrelevant to inquire whether the patentee was 

 obliged to limit himself by the ruling of the Patent- 

 Office. It is enough to say that he aid so limit him- 

 self. Toepfer vs. Goctz, xli, 933. 



Inventions. The following list comprises a 

 few of the improvements that have been de- 

 vised for the more homely and familiar walks 

 of life. Few persons appreciate the enor- 

 mous number of patents that are annually is- 

 sued. A list even of one-tenth of those really 

 deserving mention would far exceed available 

 space. The following, therefore, should be 

 regarded as suggestive rather than comprehen- 

 sive. Those who are interested will find in the 

 " Patent-Office Gazette " a full descriptive list 

 which presents an adequate idea of American 

 fertility of invention. 



Coffee-making. Among the new inventions 

 that may prove of advantage to housekeepers 

 is a contrivance known as a " percolator," 

 though the term does not accurately describe 

 its operation. It consists of a small cage or 

 basket of perforated tin or of fine wire-gauze 

 attached to an air-tight tin float. The float 

 forms a sort of cover for the cage and is easily 

 detachable therefrom. A bent wire at the top 

 of the float serves as a handle. The finely- 

 ground coffee, as much as required, is placed 

 in the cage, and the whole is then lowered into 

 the water. The float keeps the coffee near 

 the surface of the water where the ebullition 

 is most violent, and the strength is very quickly 

 extracted. Fig. 1 shows a common tin coffee- 

 pot with the side cut away and the percolator 

 floating in the water. Coffee-makers have 

 from time immemorial resorted to methods 

 similar in principle, tying the coffee loosely in 



