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.
94
PART VII.
or production involved invention, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill. If it is new only in the sense that it embodies and represents superior worlmianship, or is an improvement upon an old article in degree and excellence within all authorities, the claim is invalid. {Hatch v. Moffitt (C. C.) 15 Fed., 252; Wooster v. Callioun, 11 Blatchf., 215, Fed. Cas. No. 18035; Excelsior Needle Co. V. Union Needle Co. (C. C), 32 Fed., 221 ; Smith V. Nichols, 21 Wall., 112, 22 L. Ed., 566; Locomotive Works v. Medart, 158 U. S., 79; 15 Sup. Ct, 745; 39 L. Ed., 899.) By the terms of the claim the length of the film is not defined nor is the number of photographs which it is to represent defined. It is to be an unbroken transparent or translucent, tapelike, photographic film; it is to have thereon equidistant photographs of successive positions of an object in motion; these photographs are to be arranged in a continuous, straight-line sequence; and the number of them is not limited, save by the length of the film. The film was not new, and if the other characteristics of the product are not new, or are netr only in the sense that they add to the article merely a superiority of finish or a greater accuracy of detail, the claim is destitute of patentable novelty. (I, 161, fol. 4, 162-164.) [Italics ours.]
The Supreme Court denied an application for a writ of certiorari to review this case.
(2) After No. 589168 had been reissued, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, sus