Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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'Airi VII. 93 era at a liiiih I'alc of speed and with an intermittent nxHion, and for e\i)(>sini; siieeessivc^ portions of the sui-l'accs dnrin;^; the pej-iod ot* rest. His chiiin for sueh an apparatus was rejected by the Patent Ol'iiee and he aeqiiieseed in its rejection. He was anticipated in this by Alarey, and Mai-ey also anticipated him in ph()toji;ra[)lnng successive positions ot* the object in niotioti fi'om tlie same [)c)int of view. * * •)(■ # * Undoubtedly Mr. Edison, by utilizing this fihn and perfecting the first apparatus for using it, met all the conditions necessary for commercial success. This, however, did not entitle hitUy under the patent laws, to a monopoJfj of all camera apparatus capable of utilizing the film. Nor did it entitle him to a monopoly of all apparatus employing a single camera. ^ * * The fifth claim of the patent is 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 api^aratus was not patentable, or the product could be made by apparatus not infringing his, he could nevertheless enjoy the exclusive right of making it. A claim for an article of manufacture is not invalid merely because the article is the product of a machine, whether the machine is patented or unpatented: but it is invalid unless the article is new in a patentable sense — that is, imless its original conception