254 COFFEE. 



issued to E. E. Rhinehart, Pittsburg, Pa., June 29, 1869, claims 

 the mode of cooling or glazing roasted coffee by mixing there- 

 with, before cooling, a mucilaginous or other suitable substance. 

 The obtaining of these three patents for substantially the same 

 articles and purpose shows the facility with which patents are 

 obtained, and that in many cases their real value is questionable 

 until tested in higher courts. We find, also, an English patent, 

 No 3,131, issued to "William Pidding, November 28, 1866, which 

 antedates and originates the ideas set forth in the patents owned 

 by the association : 



"English patent, No. 3,131, "William Pidding, November 28, 

 1866 (not sealed), subjects the green coffee to cutting up into par- 

 ticles and grains, then to desiccation and roasting. In some cases 

 prefers to swell the berry by subjecting to steam at low tempera- 

 ture, in closed vessels. The granulated and roasted coffee is sub- 

 jected to pressure, with or without humid heat, between cellular 

 plates or indented rollers, producing cakes or balls of different 

 shapes ; then subjects them to a coating of gelatinous matter, 

 whether composed of pure gelatine, gum, starch, or starch gum, 

 used either separately or in combination. This coating is used as 

 a preservative of aroma and purity, the coffee being made air- 

 tiglit. In some cases intends to use the various gelatinous 

 matters in a dry state or powder (or solution), mixing the same 

 with the granulated coffee, and subjecting the same to a humid 

 heat and pressure, to produce cakes or balls. The cakes, etc., by 

 either process are subjected to heat of a temperature sufficient to 

 harden them and render them portable." 



As this patent is not sealed, it is incomplete, but, under a 

 decision of Judge Strong, in the October Term of J 876, it may be 

 of some value. The following is the decision : 



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Corset Patent. — Moritz Cohn, appellant, vs. T?w United States Corset Company, 

 John H. Lane and William Lyatt, 



[Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District 

 of New York.— Decided October Term, 1876.] 



A patent is invalid if the invention claimed is found to be patented or de- 

 scribed in a printed publication prior to the patentee's invention or discovery 



