$22 



PATENTS. 



the article, before the office can decide who 

 is the rightful inventor. Thus a person not 

 the first inventor, and not destined to have 

 the patent, may use the patent for some time. 

 The great thing in interference proceedings is, 

 to file a correct and sufficiently comprehensive 

 yet concise preliminary statement. In subse- 

 quent taking of proofs the parties will be held 

 to the dates set up in these statements, and 

 will not be allowed to contradict their allega- 

 tions. Different motions to amend are admitted, 

 and the case goes on like a suit in the courts. 

 In determining the date of invention, diligence 

 in perfecting the invention is taken into ac- 

 count. Mere conception is held to be only a 

 part of the act of invention. A case has arisen 

 between two inventors where the one who 

 made the later conception was the earliest to 

 perfect it, and after this took out his patent 

 later than the other ; the other first conceived 

 the idea, first patented it, and then went to 

 work to perfect it as a practical device, and 

 only succeeded in so doing after the date of his 

 rival's patent. The first one described above 

 was held to be the inventor. Diligence is es- 

 teemed a public service deserving recognition; 

 and in many cases the practical work of per- 

 fecting is a part of the invention. As it is 

 important to be prepared for interference 

 proceedings, inventors should be careful to 

 preserve records of the process of invention. 

 Signed and witnessed sketches, attested as to 

 date, and similarly guaranteed models, are usu- 

 ally the best evidence. There should never be 

 any trouble in obtaining trustworthy and con- 

 fidential witnesses to these. 



Utility. In the statute the word "useful" is 

 used to qualify the subject of invention. All 

 that can be said of this is, that the word is in- 

 terpreted in the broadest possible sense, and 

 that anything not opposed to good morals, or 

 similarly injurious, is patentable, as far as its 

 utility is concerned. The only case where the 

 question of utility amounts to anything is where 

 extent of invention under change of existing 

 structures, or under double use, has to be as- 

 certained. There extent of utility may be con- 

 sidered by the courts in determining whether 

 invention has been exercised. Except in this 

 particular case, the patentee has only himself 

 to satisfy of the utility of an invention. Pat- 

 entability is not affected directly by it. 



Pnblic Use. An invention that has been in 

 public use for more than two years prior to 

 the date of application can not be patented. 

 One may be the first inventor of a thing, and 

 may introduce it into public use before apply- 

 ing for a patent. If he allows two years to 

 elapse, it will be too late for him to secure his 

 invention. If a patent is granted under such 

 circumstances, the office not having cognizance 

 of the public use in question, and subsequently 

 comes into court, proof of such use will render 

 it invalid. Another inducement to diligence is 

 drawn from this. An inventor can not be sure 

 that his invention will not escape him and go 



into public use unknown to him, and for the 

 two years required to bar his patent. Still, 

 the circuit courts have held that the inventor's 

 knowledge and consent were necessary to con- 

 stitute the statutory public use. Public use 

 must occur in this country, to bar patentabil- 

 ity. It must be a use in public ; but the pub- 

 lic need not be the users. Experiments do not 

 constitute it. A great criterion, and one easily 

 applied, is whether it has been used for profit, 

 or been sold. Such use is generally fatal to it. 



Abandonment. Abandonment of an invention 

 to the public destroys patentability. The the- 

 ory is, that such inventions may be taken up by 

 the public, and pushed to a successful result. 

 In this case an injustice would be done in 

 awarding the monopoly to one who had thrown 

 his invention aside, to be developed by the la- 

 bor and time of others. As the statute ex- 

 pressly allows two years' public use before the 

 filing of the application, cases of abandonment 

 generally refer to negligence in prosecuting an 

 application already filed. It is a matter of 

 fact, sometimes hard to prove, as the intention 

 of the patentee has often to be inferred. To 

 constitute abandonment, the public must know 

 of it. Those seeking to prove abandonment 

 have to bear the burden of proof, and such 

 proof must be very clear. 



Reissues. The decisions given in the past 

 two years on the subject of reissues have ef- 

 fected an immense change in the status of this 

 class of patents. A reissue is a second patent 

 granted to cover defects arising from errors in 

 the original specification. An inventor feeling 

 that his original specification contains errors 

 due to inadvertence, may surrender it, and ap- 

 ply at the same time for a new patent, with 

 amended specification and claims. If such be 

 granted him, the old patent is void, of course, 

 as being surrendered, while the reissue bears 

 its own date of issue, and is granted for the 

 unexpired term of the original patent. For- 

 merly extensive changes in the specification 

 were admitted, and expansion of claims also. 

 Any time might elapse between the granting 

 of a patent and the granting of a reissue. The 

 new rulings of the courts have made the rights 

 of reissued patents much more limited. They 

 must be taken out soon after the original pat- 

 ent, without unreasonable delay, if any at- 

 tempt is to be made to broaden the claims. 

 As a rule, the claims can not be at all expand- 

 ed. The inserting of claims of fewer elements 

 is held to be a broadening. The theory of es- 

 tablishment of adverse rights, and of abandon- 

 ment to the public of unclaimed portions of 

 the invention, are the key-notes of these decis- 

 ions. No new invention can, on any account, 

 be permitted in a reissue, even if it is con- 

 tained in what seems to be a narrower claim. 

 The effect of this decision has been to invali- 

 date a great many old reissues, and to reduce 

 the number of reissues sought. The best gen- 

 eral rule is, to adhere to the original patent. 



Extensions. The subject of extension of pat- 





