New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Gibbs' Interference Case

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


Among the patents issued on the 13th inst., we find that of James E. A. Gibhs, assignor to John H. Ruckman, being a re-issue of his patent dated June 2, 1857. The issue of this renewed patent terminates one of the most severely contested interference suits that has ever been tried in the United States Patent Office. A brief hi8tory of this case may prove not uninteresting to our readers. As above stated, Gibbs obtained letters patent for an improvement in sewing machines on the 2d day of JunA, 1857 ; and in September following, A. F. Johnson, assignor to himself and F. F. Emery, filed an application for a similar invention and demanded an interference. Upon examination of the evidence presented on both sides, priority was decided on the 6th day of March, 1858, in favor of Gibbs. Instead of appealing to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, the attorney for Johnson made a successful attempt to obtain a second trial within the Office, which, however, resulted in the dissolntion of the interference, the Commissioner deciding that Johnson only claimed a peculiar construction of hook, consisting in a specified combination and arrangement of parts, which claim, he thought, might be allowed. Gibbs' assignee, not satisfied with this decision, insisted tbat the question of priority be decided. He accordingly cansed the suspension of the issne of Johnson's patent, surrendered his patent, and applied for a re-issue of the same with a claim covering Johnson's modification. This having been examined in connection with the evidence before the Office, the Commissioner granted the patent to him, thus acknowledging Gibbs' priority and title to a broad claim. Both Johnson's and Gibbs' patents were ordered to issne simultaneously, but delays occurred in the issue of the latter on account of an error in the records of assignments.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 47This article was published with the title “The Gibbs' Interference Case” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 47 (), p. 373
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican07311858-373d

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe