PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

74. SMITH-LACING-HOOK STOCK.-Letters Patent No. 232,561, granted September
21, 1880, to Stephen N. Smith, for an improvement in lacing-book stock, con-
strued and sustained.

*Id.

75. SNOW-STEAM BELL-RINGER.-The first claim in Patent No. 127,933, granted to
G. B. Snow, June 11, 1872, for steam bell-ringer, construed to be limited to a
combination in which the piston and piston-rod are detached from each other.
* Snow et al. v. Lake Shore aud Michigan Southern Railway Company, 482.
76. THEBERATH-MODE OF COVERING HARNESS-TRIMMINGS.-Letters Patent No.
99,032, granted January 18, 1870, to C. M. Theberath, for an improvement in
the covering of harness-trimmings, Held to be invalid for the reason that the
invention was in public use more than two years prior to filing the applica-
tion, that fact appearing from the admissions of the plaintiff upon cross-exami-
nation. Theberath v. The Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming Company, 205.
77 TODD-WASHI-BOARDS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 6,673, granted to Mrs. P.
Duff, E. A. Kitzmiller, and R. P. Duff, October 5, 1875, for an improvement
in wash-boards, on the surrender of original Letters Patent No. 111,585,
granted to Westly Todd, as inventor, February 7, 1871, are not infringed by
a wash-board constructed in accordance with the description contained in
Letters Patent No. 171,568, granted to Aaron J. Hull, December 28, 1875.
'Duff et al. v. The Sterling Pump Company, 248.

*

78. TODD PATEnt Construed and Limited.—In view of prior inventions, the
claims of the Todd patent must be limited to the form shown-namely, projec-
tions bounded by crossing horizontal and vertical grooves-and do not cover
diamond-shaped projections bounded by crossing diagonal grooves. *Id.
79. SAME. In the field of wash-boards made of sheet metal, with the surface broken
into protuberances formed of the body of the metal, so as to make a rasping-
surface and to strengthen the metal by its shape, and to provide channels for
the water to run off, Todd was not a pioneer, but merely devised a new form
to accomplish those results; and his patent does nor cover a form which is a
substantial departure from his. *Id.

80. WELLING-COMPOSITION.-Letters Patent No. 98,727, granted to William M.

Welling, January 1, 1870, for an improved composition resembling horn, de
clared void for want of patentable novelty. Welling et al. v. Crane et al., 130.
81. WHITE SHOE-TIPS.-Reissue Letters Patent No. 8,536, granted January 7, 1879,
to Hugh White, for an improvement in shoe-tips, construed and limited to a
"shortened vamp”—that is a vamp which ends substantially where the box-
toe begins as the means of uniting the box-toe and tip to the upper, while
defendant's vamp is carried for the full length over the toe and lasted with the
sole, Held that there was no use of plaintiff's invention. *White et al. v. Lee, 245.
82. WHITE'S GLOBE-HOLDER PATENT AGAIN DECLARED VOID.-Decision of the
United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York (White v.
Gleason Manufacturing Company), declaring Reissue Letters Patent No. 7,286,
granted August 29, 1876, to J. White, for a globe-holder, invalid, affirmed.
*White v. E. P. Gleason Manufacturing Company, 325.

83. WINCHELL'S PATENT-MECHANICAL CHANGE.-The Winchell patent for light-
ing the interior of the fare-box at night covered simply the making of au
aperture in the top of the fare-box, and turning the rays of the head-lamp
through it into the box by means of a reflector. In other words, it was the
turning of the rays of light to the spot where they were wanted by means of
a reflector, and taking away an obstruction to their passage.
* Slawson v.
The Grand Street, Prospect Park and Flatbush Railroad Company, 313.
84. Same-Old DEVICES.—The elements of the contrivance—namely, the fare-box,
the head-light, and the reflectors-were all old. Devices similar to this were
as old as the use of reflectors. The new application of them does not involve
invention. Id.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

85. WINTERGERST'S VAPOR-BURNER PATENT DECLARED INVALID.-Reissue letters
patent granted to Christoph Wintergerst, July 1, 1879, for an improvement
in vapor-burners, declared invalid, the scope of the invention as well as the
claims in the original patent having been changed and expanded in the re-
issue. *Doane & Wellington Manufacturing Company v. Smith, 328.

86. WOOD-CAR-BRAKE SHOES.-Letters Patent No. 45,106, granted November 15,
1864, to Joseph Wood, for an improvement in car-brake shoes, and Letters Pat-
ent No. 49,948, granted September 12, 1865, to James Christy, for improvement
in car-break shoes, examined and compared, and Held that the former patent
is not infringed by the latter. *National Car Brake Shoe Company v. Boston &
Albany Railroad Company et al., 204.

PARTIES TO SUIT. See Assignments, 6; Bill in Equity, 1; Disclaimers, 1; Injunction,
6; Licenses, 1; Service of Process; Title to Patent, 3.

1. INFRINGEMENT-LIABILITY.-The only persons who can be held for damages for
the intringement of a patent are those who own or have some interest in the
business of making, using, or selling the thing which is an infringement,
and an action at law cannot be maintained against the directors, sharehold-
ers, or workmen of a corporation which infringes a patented improvement.
* United Nickel Company et al. v. Worthington et al., 196.

2. LICENSEE-When CannOT SUE IN HIS OWN NAME.-A mere license to make and
use, without the right to grant to others to make and use, the thing patented,
though exclusive, will not authorize the licensee to bring suit in his own name
for infringement without joining the patentee. Semble, if the patentee re-
fuses to join, a court of equity can give a remedy to the licensee.
Chickering et al., 258.

Wilson v.

PARTS OF INVENTION. See Combinations, 1, 2, 4, 5; Construction of Specifications and
Patents, 2; Infringement, 4, 7, 8, 11, 18, 20; Interferences, 2.

PATENTABILITY. See Aggregation; Combinations, 4, 10; Designs, 3; Invention, 1, 2,
3; Non-Invention, 1; Trade-Marks, 9.

1. OLD DEVICES-MERE MECHANICAL CHANGE.-A rocking chair constructed to
move upon a stationary platform having a base or rails upon which the rock-
ers move, the base being tongued and the rockers grooved so that one fits into
the other, the ends of the base being elevated to prevent the rockers from
working off, with flexible rubber bands connecting the rockers to the rails of
the stand to prevent the seat from moving back and forth on the rails or rock-
ing too far either way, is a mere mechanical change from chairs in previous
use, and in such a device there is nothing that can be the subject of a patent.
*Singer Rocking Chair Company v. Tobey Furniture Company, 127.

2. COMBINATIOn of Old EleMENTS.-Where the patentee attained the result of
producing a new thing-a silver-plated steel spoon-by a succession of old
processes, which, though separately old, had not been practically grouped
together in the order in which he used them, it is a patentable novelty in pro-
cess. Wallace v. Noyes et al., 147.

3. PRINCIPLE-METHOD-APPARATUS.-There can be no patent for a mere princi-
ple. The discoverer of a natural force or scientific fact cannot have a patent
for that; but if he invents for the first time a process by which a certain
effect of one of the forces of nature is made useful to mankind, and fully de-
scribes and claims that process, and also describes a mode or apparatus by
which it may be usefully applied, he is entitled to a patent for the process of
which he is the first inventor, and is not restricted to any particular form
of mechanism or apparatus by which he carries out that process. *American
Bell Telephone Company v. Dolbear et al., 160.

10452 c P-34

PATENTABILITY-Continued.

4. SAME-IMPROVED APPARATUS.-Another person, who afterward invents an im-
proved form of apparatus embodying the same process, may indeed obtain a
patent for his improvement; but he has no right to use the process in his
own or any other form of apparatus without the consent of the first inventor
of the process. *Id.

5. BELL'S PATENT CONSTRUED AND SUSTAINED.-As said in Spencer's case, Bell
discovered a new art-that of transmitting speech by electricity-and has a
right to hold the broadest claim for it which can be permitted in any case,
and the invention is nothing less than the transfer to a wire of electrical vi-
brations like those which a sound has produced in the air, and his patent,
while not covering the abstract principle, without regard to means, of trans-
mitting speech by electricity, yet is not limited to a particular form of appa-
ratus, but includes the process or method (using the two words as equiva-
lent), the essential elements of which are the production of what the patent
calls undulatory vibrations of electricity to correspond with those of the air,
and transmitting them to a receiving instrument capable of echoing them.
*Id.

6. LETTERS PATENT No. 76,394-PAPIER-MACHÉ DUMMY-SUBSTITUTION of Ma-
TERIAL-COGNATE USE -In a dummy for displaying clothing, the substitu-
tion of a papier-maché shell for the skeleton frame of the well-known wire
dummy lacks patentable novelty, in view of the analogous use of that ma-
terial in the construction of lay figures representing varions celebrated per-
sonages and draped in suitable costumes. The display of the clothing was
not the primary purpose for which the lay figures were intended, but that
use was obviously one of the ends in view. The new application of an old
material to a cognate use will not generally support a patent, but here it was
employed in the same use. · Palmenbing v. Buchholz, 172.

*

7. INVENTION-TRIFLING CHANGES.-The design of the patent laws is to reward
those who make some substantial discovery or invention which adds to our
knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. It was never
their object to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a
shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any
skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. *At-
lantic Works v. Brady, 214.

8. IMPROVEMENTS-PATENTABILITY.-An improvement in try-squares which pro-
duces a tool more convenient, with a larger capacity, and more accurate by
adding to such a tool a slot in one of the arms is a patentable invention.
*Starrett v. Athol Machine Company et al., 255.

9. IMPROVEMENT-DIFFERENT INVENTIONS.-If, in the operation of a prior ma-
chine, a greater number of persons necessarily have to be employed than in
a patented machine, this tends to prove that the machines are not alike
*Coupe et al. v. Weatherhead et al., 274.

10. SAME-Change of STRUCTURE-Patentability.-The omission of certain ele-
ments of the old machine and insertion of certain additional features, if an
improvement results, constitutes a patentable invention. *Id.

11. PATENTABILITY.-It is not necessary for a machine to be automatic in order to
be patentable. *Id.

12. IMPROVEMENT IN NIPPERS-FIRST INVENTOR OF THE SAME.-The addition to
an old form of nippers of a prong and notch connection between the hand-
levers and a projection or lip over the spring is a patentable improvement,
and in an interference between two parties claiming to have suggested this
improvement the question is which of the parties added to the old instru-
ment these devices which rendered it complete and operative. Hall v. John-
39.

son,

PATENTABILITY-Continued.

13. QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY OF INCREASED IMPORTANCE.-The tendency of
the late decisions of the Supreme Court is to the effect that the question of
patentability, in view of the state of the art, is to be examined with in-
creased attention. Bradley & Hubbard Manufacturing Company v. Charles

Parker Company, 397.

14. PATENT For Matter SHOWN IN PRIOR PATENT.-An inventor cannot include in
a second patent matter which was shown and described in a former patent
granted to himself. Ex parte Hill and Prentice, 64.

PATENTED ARTICLES. See Damages and Profits; Infringement, 15; Notice to the
Public of Patented Articles, 1, 2.

PATENTEES. See Disclaimers, 1, 2, 4; Estoppel.

PATENT LAWS. See Construction of Statutes.

PATENT CAN INCLUDE BUT A SINGLE INVENTION. See Divisional Application,
1; Invalid Patents, 2; Validity of Patents, 1.

PATENTS. See Abandoned Experiments, 1; Constitutional Protection of Inventions, 1, 2,
3; Construction of Specifications and Patents; Disclaimers; Divisional Applica-
tion; Estoppel; Invalid Patents; Limitation of U. S. Patents by foreign patents
previously granted; Oath of Inventor; Particular Patents; Patentability; Public
Use; Reissues; Title to Patent; Validity of Patents; Void Patents.

PATENTS GRANTED BY SPECIAL ACTS. See Assignments, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10.
PATENTS NOT LITIGATED.

See Injunction, 2, 6, 9.

PERMISSIBLE CHANGES IN REVISING PATENTS. See Reissues, 4, 14, 15.
PETITION. See Practice in the Patent Office, 2.

PETITION TO REOPEN. See Motion to Reopen.

PLEA. See Contracts, 2.

POWER OF ATTORNEY. See Attorneys; Void Application.

POWER OF CONGRESS. See Constitutional Protection of Inventions, 1, 2, 3.
POWER OF THE COURTS. See Appeals, 1; Jurisdiction to Grant a Patent.
PRACTICE IN THE COURTS. See Agreement to Assign, 1, 2; Bill in Equity, 1, 2; Con-
tracts, 2, 3, 4, 5; Decree, 1; Defenses, 1, 3; Disclaimers, 1, 5, 6, 7; Evidence, 1;
Infringement, 10, 14, 15, 19; Injunction, 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14; Master's
Report; Patentability, 13; Prior Publications; Reissues, 12; State Statutes; Title
to Patent, 2, 3; Trade-Marks, 4.

1. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-ANSWER TO BILL-DEFENSE.-The practice of dismiss-
ing a bill because the invention described in the patents sued upon did not
embody or require invention, although no such defense was set up in the
answer, sustained. *Slawson v. The Grand Street, Prospect Park and Flatbush
Railroad Company, 313.

2. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS.-Judicial notice will
be taken of facts of general knowledge. Taylor's Ev., sec. 4, note 2; Brown v.
Piper, ubi supra. *Id.

3. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-RECOMMITAL OF MASTER'S REPORT.-Upon a motion
to recommit a master's report, it appearing that some of the matter desired
to be shown was material, the motion was granted that the case should be so
completed as to present the questions to be decided in all the aspects which
might ultimately be found to be material. *McKay v. Jackman, 406.

4. PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-PAYMENT OF MASTER'S FEES.-Prior to final decree
and taxation of costs, the defendants, having been adjudged infringers and
decreed to account for the gains, profits, and damages of their infringement,
are to bear the necessary expenses of the accounting, among which are the
master's fees.
Kayton et al., 408.

* Urner v.

PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-Continued.

5. PRACTICE-EFFECT OF PRIOR DECISION IN STATE COURT.-Where a suit was
brought in a State court to recover damages for breach of a certain con-
tract, and afterward a suit is brought under the provisions of an act of Con-
gress in a Federal court for the infringement of letters patent, the question as
to the rights of a party under the patent is to be regarded as an original
question, as if there had been no former suit. Oliver, Finnie & Co. v. Rumford
Chemical Works et al., 443.

PRACTICE IN THE PATENT OFFICE. See Abandoned Applications; Abandoned
Experiments, 2; Adandonment; Access to the Files and Records of the Patent
Office; Amendments, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Appeals; Applications; Combinations, 1,
7,8; Designs, 1, 3, 7, 8; Disclaimers, 3; Divisional Applications, 1; Estoppel;
Eridence; Interferences, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Motion to Reopen, 1, 2;
Priority of Invention, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Public Use, 1; Rules of Practice; Specifica-
tions; Trade-marks, 9; Void Patents, 1, 2, 3; Witnesses.

1. OPERATION OF DECISIONS-RULES.-Decisions of the courts operate upon all
cases alike from the time they are rendered, while rules of practice should
only be applied to cases filed after their adoption. Ex parte Pfaudler, 169.
2. RULE 86 NOT RETROACTIVE.-It was not intended that Rule 86, requiring a
certain statement to be filed with petitions for reissue, should apply to appli-
cations filed prior to its adoption, nor will the fact that the petition has been
amended since the adoption of the rule bring the case within the rule. Id.
3. STATEMENT SHOULD BE SPECIFIC.-In cases where the statement referred to is
required, it should point out the particular defects in the original patent and
how and in what manner the patent was thereby rendered inoperative and
invalid. The statement should present facts and not conclusions. Id.

4. RULES OF PRACTICE-SCOPE OF.-It is the duty of the Examiner to refuse to
act when there is nothing before him under the law upon which he is author-
ized to act, whether or not a rule has been formulated for the particular case.
Ex parte Benton, 33.

5. PRACTICE IN the Patent OFFICE-PRIORITY OF INVENTION.—As the questions
to be decided in the Patent Office are, who is the prior inventor and to whom
should the patent issue, it is necessary that the testimony material to establish
who was the prior inventor and who first reduced the invention to practice
should be received at any time before the patent issues. Eccard v. Draw-
baugh, 50.

6. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 86-SET FORTH FACTS, NOT OPINIONS.—A statement
filed under Rule 86 must show the facts upon which the application for re-
issue is based as distinguished from the conclusions and opinions of the person
who prepares the paper. Ex parte Timken, 158.

7. Same-DefECTS SPECIFICAlly Pointed OUT.-The rule requires that the de-
fects in the patent must be specifically pointed out, not by the expression of
opinion as to whether the invention is fully described, or whether it is de-
scribed with particularity, and so on, but the applicant must distinctly state
what the defects are which render the patent inoperative and invalid, and
must also show how the supposed errors arose. Id.

8. SAME-ADMISSIBILITY OF CLAIMS.-The question of the admissibility of the
claims upon their merits does not arise in connection with the statement filed
under Rule 86, but will be determined when the application comes up for
examination upon its merits. Id.

9. VAGUE DESCRIPTION.-The fact that it has been the common practice of the office
to permit parties to mention vaguely different ways in which a thing can be
done is not a sufficient reason for insisting upon such practice or continuing
it. Ex parte Howe, 01.