We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
I'AICI \1I.
1)1
ticc Sli('|Kir(l wliicli arc piiiitcd in tlir record as I'oil( »\\ s :
V.,1. I'aK-.
Opiiiioii of (lie ('iicuit Courl of Appeals. ^rc(»ii(l circuit. in the liist case on llie caiiieia and iilin patent No. .^SDKiS, between tlie Kdison and l»io^lapli companies, and i'e|)oi"te(l in 111 Fe<|., 1>'_!('>, by Cii-ciiit Jii(l<:-e Wallace. March 10. l!>n-J: petitioner's Kxhihit r)N I 151
Opinion of the C'ircMiit Court of Ai)i)oals, second circuit, in the second case on the camera patent, reissue No. 1lM)8T, re[)ortecl in 151 Fed.. TOT. hy Circuit Judge Laconibe March 5. liK)T: petitioner's Exhibit 59 I 1G6
Opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, on film patent, reissue \o. 1*2192, by Chief Justice Shepard, dated December 2, 1912: petitioner's Exhibit GO I 175
Tlie patent on the negative film, reissue Xo. 12192, is an invalid patent ; it has been so held by the courts. Twelve years ago the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, by Judge Wallace, unanimously held that Edison was not the inventor of the film and summarily dismissed his claim thereon, stating that it was obviously an attempt by the patentee to obtain a monopoly of the product of the apparatus described in the patent, so that in the event it should turn out that his apparatus was not patentable, he could nevertheless enjoy the exclusive right of making it. An effort to take the decision by certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States failed.
Reissue Xo. 12192, being a reissue of claims 5 and 6 of the original patent Xo. 589168 has never been