Brief for the United States (1914)

PAHT VII. 95 taiiUMl the Mdisoii claim rclatiiii; to the caiiicra, naincly, N(». l^VM. (^irciiit .Indite Laciniihc said ( I, t'<»l. /w//'s(})i y. A NK ricd II M id osco jic <(• JHof/rd/J/ ('o., C'wcuit Coui-t of A))|)('als, Second Cii-ciiit, 1')! Fed. Re|)., 7()7, opinion oil ImHsoii reissue camera patent No. 12037) : Upon the a])])oal in tlic first suit we discussed tlie ])rior art and the irenei'al cliaraeter of the device soui>;lit to be patented at very oreat length. It is unnecessary to repeat that discussion. All that was said in the prior o])inion, however, may be considered as embodied herein, since the conclusion hereinafter expressed is founded upon ' the findings then made, and which nothing in the present record or argmnent induces us to qualify in any manner. We held that Edison was not a pioneer in the large sense of the term, or in the limited sense in wdiich he w^ould have been if he had invented the film. He fras )wt the inventor of the fihn/' (I, 166, fol. 3.) (3) In Chicago Fihn Ejcchange v. Motion Picture Patents Company (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia) reissue Xo. 12192 was squarely overthrown. Chief Justice Shepard said, referring to Judge Wallace's opinion (I, 176, fol. 3) : The fifth claim for the film, it was said, 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