34 ADULTEEATED DRUGS AND CHEMICALS. 



The monoacetylparamidophenetole crystallizes in white leaves, melting at 133 to 

 136 centigrade. It is tasteless, little" soluble in cold water, more so in hot water, 

 but easily in alcohol, chloroform, benzole, etc. It is altogether different from the 

 body described in the Year Book of Pharmacy, 1883, page 146, denominated "phe- 

 naceteine". The formula of phenaceteine is C 10 H 12 O, that of phenacetine C 10 H 13 O 2 N, 

 my product containing nitrogen contrary to phenaceteine. The phenaceteine repre- 

 sents a coloring matter, an armorphous carmine red powder, the acid solution of 

 which is yellow, the alkaline raspberry red, while my phenacetine is colorless, crys- 

 tallizing in white leaves, not changing color by addition of acids or alkalies. 



Having thus described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by 

 Letters Patent, is 



The product herein described, which has the following characteristics: it crystal- 

 lizes in white leaves, melting at 135 centigrade; not coloring on addition of acids or 

 alkalies; is little soluble in cold water, more so in hot water; easily soluble in alco- 

 hol, ether, chloroform, or benzole; is without taste and has the general composition 

 C 10 H 13 2 N. 



O. HlNSBERG. 



Witnesses: 



Wm. Diestel, 

 O. J. Heimpel. 



A patent on phenacetin was granted to O. Klimmek, a of Chicago, 

 111., under the chemical name ox3 T ethylacetanilid. This patent was 

 subsequently found to be invalid. 



On reading the phenacetin patent (Hinsberg) it will be observed 

 that this patent is for the product and the descriptive portion or speci- 

 fication sets forth a process by which this product is made. In an 

 attack on the validity of the patent the patentees took shelter behind 

 this claim, alleging that the invention resided in the product and not 

 in the process. The patentee undoubtedly felt that there was nothing 

 new in the process described, and it was a necessity to draft the patent 

 in such a manner as to permit the above construction. There is noth- 

 ing new in the process. Every step was well known to chemists long 

 prior to the time of application for the patent. The only useful im- 

 provement in the process was its application on a commercial scale, 

 and there could have been little hope of successfully defending such 

 a process in case of an attack. The claim for the product seems to be 

 quite safe, for there is nothing available in ordinary chemical litera- 

 ture that conclusively anticipated the patent. The "crystalline solid " 

 of Ilallock, spoken of above, was undoubtedly impure phenacetin, but 

 his information concerning the product was not sufficient anticipation, 

 in the opinion of the courts, to invalidate a useful patent. 



The patent has been declared good and valid in law by the United 

 States circuit court* for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and the 

 United States circuit court of appeals' 7 for the third circuit affirmed 

 the decision of the lower court. O. Hinsberg must therefore at 

 present be considered the acknowledged discoverer of phenacetin. 



U. S. Pat. No. 606288, June 28, 1898. 



&Pickerson et al. v. Mauer, Fed. Kept, 1901, 108: 2:::;. 



cMauer r. Dickerson et al., Fed. Kept, 1902, 113: 870. 



