On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
GOTTFRIED et al. VS. THE PHILLIP BEST BREWING COMPANY et al.--IMPROVEMENT IN PITCHING BARRELS, PATENTED MAY 3, 1864. [It is not often that so many interesting questions-are involved and decided in Ii single case as in the following.] JOINT INVENTION. 1. To overthrow the presumption of joint invention raised by the filing of a joint application upon a joint oath the evidence must be clear and unequivocal. 2. Joint invention is the result of mutual contributions of the parties; and if one suggests an idea in a general way and the other falls in with it, and by his aid develops and gives definite practical embodiment to it, the two may be considered joint inventors. A LICENSEE FOR A PARTICULAR MACHINE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THEREFOR A NEW MACHINE. 3. The defendants claimed .to be licensees under the patent by' reason of a purchase fromone of the inventors of a machine used by him; but it appearing that said machine was subsequently torn down and afterward rebuilt of substantially a new construction, it was held that the identity of the original machine was thereby destroyed, and the evidence did not disclose such facts as to show that the patentees had expressly or impliedly given to the defendants license or permission to use such machine. SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY OF CONSTRUCTION ARE . SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A PATENT. 4. The patent law protects simplicity and economy of construction as against prior complex and expensive combinations; and although the general and abstract effect may be analogous, if the two mechanisms produce their respective results by essentially different processes, the one being more simple and capable of being operated with greater economy than the other, it is not anticipated thereby. REQUISITES OF SUCCESSFUL PRIORITY. 5. A prior patent or publication, to anticipate a patent, must appear in the description to embody substantially the same organized mechanism, operating substantially in the same manner as that described in the patent claimed to have been anticipated. THE NEW ARRANGEMENT OF OLD DEVICES MAY BE PATENTED. 6. Old instruments placed in new and different organizations, producing in such situation different results, or the some results by a new and different mode of operation, do no prevent such newly-organized mechanism from being patentable. TO OVERTHROW A PATENT THE ALLEGED PRIOR DEVICE MUST BE PERFECTED AND PRACTICAL. 7 To justify the court in overthrowing a patent granted for what appears to be a new and useful invention or improvement, on the ground that the device has been anticipated by another and earlier invention, the court should be well satisfied by clear and credible testimonythat the alleged earlier invention actually existed; that it was a perfected device capable of practical use; that it was embodied in distinct form and carried into operation as a complete thing, and was not of such character as to entitle it only to be regarded as an unperfected or abandoned experiment. 8. A rude machine constructed for the purpose of experiment, and subsequently broken up, deserted, and abandoned, cannot be regarded as such a perfected invention as will defeat a patent NEW COMBINATIONS OF OLD PARTS ARE PATENTABLE. 9. Although the various elements or parts of the patented mechanism, when separately considered, may be regarded as old, they are to be viewed in the light in which they have been combined in connection with the new and useful results which the combination accomplishes. THE CLAIMS ARE TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. 10 A claim to the application of heated air under blast -to the interior of casks by means substantially as described -and for the purposes set forth, embraces the particular -means and mode of operation described in the specification. 11. Claims containing words referring back to the specification must be construed in the light of the explanations contained in the specification- 12. It is sufficient for the purpose of distinguishing old parts from new in the specification and claims of a patent to describe each and all of the parts, and claim the mechanism as a whole, so constructed and operated as to produce the result set forth.
