42 



be directed to furnish satisfactory testimony that the invention of his 

 machine was prior to the invention of a similar machine by Obed Hus- 

 sey, and that he be directed to give due notice to the said Hussey of 

 the time and place of taking of said testimony. 



" March 29, 1848. The Board met agreeably to adjournment. 

 Present: Jas. Buchanan, Edmund Burke and R. H. Gillett, and having 

 examined the evidence adduced in the case, decided that said patent 

 ought not to be extended. 



" (Signed) JAMES BUCHANAN, Secretary of State. 



" EDMUND BURKE, Commissioner of Patents. 



" R. H. GILLETT, Solicitor of the Treasury." 



As was common in extension cases, the Commissioner of Patents 

 had previously asked the Examiner in the Patent Office to report on 

 McCormick's patent, and this report, dated January 22, 1848, stated 

 that: 



" The cutting knife and mode of operating it, the fingers to guide 

 the grain and the revolving rack for gathering the grain, were not 

 new at the time of granting said letters patent- The knife, fingers and 

 general arrangement and operation of the cutting apparatus, are 

 found in the reaping machine of Obed Hussey, patented 3ist of De- 

 cember, 1833. The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its 

 operation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, pat- 

 ented 2d November, 1825. Respectfully submitted, 



"CHARLES G. PAGE, Examiner." 



Page, the Examiner, who knew little about reaping machines, 

 called McCormick's reel a " revolving rack." Ten Eyck, in 1825, took 

 a patent on a reaper which proved a complete failure. It had revolv- 

 ing knives similar to those of lawn mowers. Page, noticing that the 

 pictures resembled each other, mistook the drawing of this cutting ap- 

 paratus for a reel, and cited it as an anticipation. He made a mistake, 

 which merely emphasized his ignorance and lack of knowledge on the 

 subject This error of Page's alone was fatal to McCormick's applica- 

 tion, for at that early day Buchanan and Gillett accepted Page's opin- 

 ion that the gathering-reel and the cutting-cylinder were identical con- 

 structions having the same functions. Burke, the Commissioner of 

 Patents, recognized the distinction, and was in favor of the extension. 

 He signed the decision only because it was the custom for all to unite 

 in the ruling of the majority. Viewing this matter in the light of fifty- 

 years' experience, it is easy to see how fatal Page's blunder was to the 

 interests of McCormick's extension. The only other point in Page's 

 report was the cutting apparatus of Hussey. Having invented his 



