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.
COMBINED PATENTS CAN COMPANY S. LLOYD. Butler, J .McKennaa, J., concurring. The statute of 1870, relati ng to reissues, authorizes the insertion of new claims, founded upon the original invention as exhibited by the specifications or drawings, in reissues, when the omission results from " inadvertence, accident, or mistake," and where the claimant has not hy some act or omission estopped himself from exercising the right to amend. The question whether a patent is " inoperative or invalid by reason of defective or insufflaient description or specification," and whether such defect has arisen by " inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or decep live in lention, " ' appears from the decisions of the Court to be submitted finally to ? the judgment of the Commissioner wherever the circumstances bring it within the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the statute. Where additional matter is chumed, however, which does not appear by refere ii ce to the patent or conte m porary records to be embraced m tbe invention, or where it appears by such reference that the alleged omission ' 'could not have occurred through inadvertence or mistake," ' as said by the Court in James s. Campbell et al., the case is not within the jurisdiction of the Co m m issioner, and a reissue for additional claims may be declared void. Where' the only mistake suggested is an omission of a claim, and the .patentee neglects for thirteen years to file his application for reissue, Held that be must be regarded, in view of his conduct, as intending to dedicate such invention to the public, and he is estopped from asserting his claim to such invent ion in a reissue. Mr. E. N. Dickerson, for the complainant. Mr. Henry Bctldwin, , for the defendant. On the 30th day of August, 1864, a patent, No. 43,979, 'was issued to August Destouy for a new and useful improvement in tbe manufacture of metal mouldwgs, in which the claims, two in number, read as follows: "1. .The T-shaped metal moulding, made substantially as and for tbe purpose specified. "3. The jaws, B and D D', either straight or curved, and tool, C, constructed and opei-ating substantially as herein set forth, for the purpose of imparting to the mO ul'd ings the final touch before they are applied to the article to be orna ? mented." ' On the 17th day of Apr il, 1877, the patient was surrendered, and a reissue, No. 7,609, granted to Herman Mmer, with the claims enlarged and multiplied to four in number, the third and fourth, which were new, reading as follows ? "8. The combination, with a table having a stationary jaw or angle, of movable jaws operating, asi shown and described, to compress the bent metal a,gainst said stationary jaw. "4. The combination, with a table having a stationary jaw or an vil and movable jaws, as described, of treadles connected with sad movable jaws by levers, substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth. " Bill dismissed. United States Circuit Court.--Northern District of Illinois. PATENT FEATHER DUSTERS.--NATIONAL FEATHER DUSTBB COMPANY 8. HIBBARD. Blodgett, D. J. : This is a bill in equity, framed under section 4,918 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, for the purpose of set ' ting aside and declaring void a patent issued by the United States to Susan M. Hibbard, for an improvement in feather dusters, dated May 30, 1876, and numbered 177,933, upon the ground that tiie patentee, Susan M. Hibbard, was not the inventor of the device described m and covered by the patent. The complainant claims to be tbe owner of patent No. 154,985, issued by the United States on the 15th of September, 1874, to William H. Curwin, Charles J. Sauter, and William W- Clark, as assignees of George W. Hibbard, for an improv em ent in feather dusters, and charges that George W. Hibbard is the husband of the defendant, Susan M. Hibbard, and that after the .said George had m ade the invention described in the letters patent No. 154,985, and before the issue of his patent, he sold and assigned his invention and his right to a patent thereto to the parties named therein, to wit, Cufwin, Sau ter, and Clark, and the patent was duly issued to them as assignees of George W. Hibbard; and that after said George W- had made the invention described in his patent and sold the same, as stated, he and the said Susan M., his wife, colluded together to obtain the letters patent which were issued to said Susan upon the pretext and false assumption that said Susan was the real inventor of the device covered by the first issued letters patent And the bill prays tbat the patent so issued to said Susan M. in violation of the exclusive rights of the complainant s in the inven tion therein described may be canceled and set aside. The pecuHnr feature which characterizes botb these patents is a feather duster made of turkey feathers, or tbe feathers of our ordinary domestic fowls adapted to such purpose, made pliable hy removing tbe pithy part or body from the stem of the feat hers so as to adapt the feathers more perfectly to such use when combined with the other elements to form a duster or brush. The' proof in th is case shows conclusively tbat Mrs. Susan J. Hibbard knew of the fact tbat her husband had applied for a patent upon this device, knew also that he was poor and unable to pay the expense of obtainmg a patent, and that he made the bargain with Curwin and Sauter to advance the expenses and obtain the patent, on condition that tbey should become half owners thereof. She also knew of the negotiations between bel' husband and Clark for the sale of the other half of the patent and made no objection to the negotiation, and knew that her husband was to receive what was considered very liberal pay for the remainmg half of the patent, and the only objection she ever made to the negotiation was that she insisted that the purchase money to be paid by Clark should be given to her, not because she was the inventor or had anything to do with the invention of the duster to be covered by the patent, but because her husband, being an improvident man, would squander the money, which she wished to use in the purchase of a home for the family. During all the negotiations between her husband and Curwin and Sauter and h er husband and Clark she never claimed or pretended, or by any conduct on her part insinuated, that the invention was in any degree her wn, but allowed these men to invest t heir money in the procurement of the patent, and Clark pay for the unsold half of the patent, upon the understanding--to which she seems to have been as fully a party as her husband--that he was the inventor of the duster to be covered by the patent. It seems to me that the proof shows that Mrs. Hibbard, in allowing her husband to deal with Curwin, Sauter, and Clark as the original and first inventor of th iss device, has so far conceded or admitted him to be the original inventor thereof as that she should be estopped from now claiming otherwise, and especially claiming that she and not her husband was tbe inventor. If there were no other features in the case, therefore, than the conduct of Mrs. Hibbard toward the persons with whom her husband dealt, I should think it enough to cancel this patent as against the patent previously issued to him. But the case is, perhaps, susceptible of solution upon another ground. It appears from th e proof that George W. Hib bard, for so me time prior to the alle ged invention described in his patent, had been engaged in the manufacture of dusters from turkey feathers by seltingthem in their natural condition into a handle, so as to make a brush or d uster ; that some little time prior to the 10th of February, 1874, he conceived ' the idea of making a better duster by softening the stems of turkey feathers and rendering them more pli-able, so as to make a feather duster which would supersede or take the place of dusters then and theretofore made from oStrich feathers, his idea being th at if he could make turkey feathers or the feathers of our common fowls pliable he could use them in place of foreign feathers and make as good if not a better duster. He. experi men ted some time in th is direction with chemicals for the purpose of softening the stem or rib of the.se feathers, and, not succeeding to his. satisfaction in any of these experiments, was discussing the subject on one occasion with h is wi fe, when she sugges ted to cutting or shaving down the stem of the feathers, so as to make' them pliable and limber. The suggestion was at once acted upon and a duster made which proved satisfactory, and the patent issued to his assignees was obtained for this device as the invention of George W - Hihbard. Mrs. Hibbard's sole claim to the invention covered by her patent, which is the same as that covered by the patent of ber husband, is that'the suggestion or idea of cutting or trimming these feathers down so as to make them limber first came from her, and upon this fact sbe claimed and obtained the patent in controversy. The speci fications and claims in the two paten ts are substantially the same, and are for. " As an improved article of manufacture, a feath er duster having the stems of the feathers split longitudinally, and a part thereof severed from the remaining part, substantially as'pecified." The patent, it w ill be seen, is for this new article of manufacture--namely, a feather duster made of split feathers. It is not upon split feathers as such or upon the process of splitting feathers, but upon a combination of the split feathers w ith the other elements by whicb a d uster is made. The idea of a feather duster, to be made of feathers of the common turkey or other domestic fowls, seems clearly to have originated with George W. Hibbard. The desideratMrn was to make these feathers pliable. He was seeking to accomplish this when the suggestion was made to him by Mrs. Hibbard to try cutting or splitting them. The proof on the part of Mrs. Hibbard fails to shoW, indeed it falls far short of showing, that sheever made a featb er d uster or thought of making one from turkey feathers made pliable by splitting them until after her husband had been for some time at work in that direction. The most the proof does show is that she suggested the mode of making feathers limber and pliabl e which were used for the purpose of making the feather dusters described in tbis patent. The successful feather duster covered by both these patents was, it seems to me from the proof, the invention of George W. Hibbard. 'Vhile he was experimenting--I may say, perhapss, groping--for some method of rendering his feathers pliable, Mrs. Hibbard suggested the experiment of splitting the feathers. He acted upon tliat suggestion, and finding that the feathers were thereby made pliable, combined them with the other material and made the feather duster which before that time had only had existence in his mind. Although Mrs. Hibbard may have made a valuable suggestion in the progress of the experiment, yet that does not make her tbe inventor. (Agawam Company 'Vs. JQrdan, 7 Wall., 603 ; Pitts 'Vs. Sail, 2 Blatcbf., 339.) For these reasoris, but mainly upon the ground of the e.s toppel, which I think the most cogent, tbe bill of the plainant will be sustained and a decree entered setting aside the patent issued to Susan M. Hibbard. Inauguration of the Sibley Mill, AulI:nsta, Ga. An interestmg event in the history of cotton manufacturing II Augusta, Ga., took place on Wednesday, February 32. On that day, m the presence of a large number of invited guests and interested spectators, the head gates of the cana) were raised, water turned on, and the entire machinery of this magnificent structure was set m motion. The Sibley Mill is without doubt the most elegant as well as the most thoroughly equipped mill in the South, and, in fact, in all the details that go to make up a handsome, complete, and convenient mill it has no superior in Am erica. The main buildin g is 530 feet long, 76 feet wide, and four stories high, with commodious picker house, dye house, finishing room, and store house. In the construction and arrangement of these buildings the greatest possible attention has been given for the conven ient and economical handling of the cotton, from its ani val on the premises till its departure in the shape of manufactured goods. On the upper floor is the opening and mixing room, with a capaci ty for 50 bales of cotton, the floors being laid with slate to a How the dirt to fall through. On this floor also is the w arping and spinning machinery. The third floor is occupied by the cotton bins and picker roams, in which are four breaker and four finisher pickers, from the works of the Kitson Machine Company of Lowell, Mass., separated by a substantial brick wall from the card room, which contains eight double sections of nine cards each, in all 144 Fo.ss & Pevey. cards. The second and first floors will be occu pied by 1,000 looms, about 300 of whicb are Crompton'.s fancy looms; tbe otbers, together with the carding, spinning, and warping machinery, being built by the Lowell Maclune Shop, Lowell, Mas.. The roomsare all bigh, well lighted, admirably ventilated, and fitted with every convenience for the comfort of the operatives. In front of the main entrance stands the office building, a handsome two story structure, having on the first floor offices for the president, superin ten dent, and general business, and on the upper floor a capacious designing room. In front of the office stands, as a monument of the past, the giant chimney of the Augusta Powder Mills, the property of the Con federate Survivors" ' Association, ' standing guard over an industry of peace, as it once did during the manufacture of munitions of war. Near by the main buil diug, and overlookin g the grounds, is the residence of tbe superintendent, and at the other end of the mill are six brick tenements for the overseers, while acro,ss the canal the company has fifteen acres of la nd on which are built twenty bouses of four tenements each for operatives. The capital stock of the company is 1,000,000. The officers are William C. Sibley, president ; Jones S. Davis, superintendent. Mr. Davis is well known among northern manufacturers.--Industrial South. -m *** m --?-- oh the Electric Transmission of Power to Great Distances. BY MAKCEI, DEPIlEJZ.* Such experiments as have been made on the transmission of power by electricity have always been to short distances. In the Noisiel applications ' the distance did not exceed three kilometers, the two stations being connected by cables of feeble resistan ce. In the different applications known there has never been a power greater than that of six to eight horses tr ansmit ted to a distance of five kilometers, with macbinery weighing about 500 kilogrammes. It has often be en asserted tbat transmission to great distances is impracticable. It ' may be interesting, then, to state an ex priment that I bave recent ly ma de. With Gra m me machines of a small type, weighing about 100 kilogrammes, and modified according to principles that I have indicated, I h ave obtained an effective power of 37 kilogrammeters, the resistance interposed between tbe motor and receiver being 786 ohms, representing a distance of 78'6 kilometers of ordinary telegraphic wire. In order to bri n g this result into stronger relief I -place the dWerent elements of this experiment side by side with those of an ' analogous experiment made by Mr. Fontaine with larger machines, and the results of which he has published : Velocity, j POlWe PRu-r Performance -"3- Hevolationai Kf!m. Kgm. Ohms. Fontame. ..' 1,570 31-5 0'8 0 38 4-6B Deprez.....' 2,300 38 0 lO 0'35 786-0 This transmission took place without the occurrence of any spark on the brushes, the machines' remaining perfectly cold, and without there having been any necessity of taking special precautions for the insulation of the conductors. The result of 0'35 obtained is only that derived from the first experiment. I have not yet had time to study the best conditions of velocity. of static effort, and of electromotive power. There is nothing theoretically to pre vent the result reached being better, and I am certain of SOOD realizing it. However, I have thought it well to announce now, without waiting any longer, a result in electrical transmission wbich bas hitherto been considered as impracticable. * Note commnuicated to the Mademie de? Sciences, February 13, 1882.
