Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
000108
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
June 06, 2024
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.

96 PART VII. event it should turn out that his apparatus was not patentable, or the product could be made by apparatus not infringing his, he could nevertheless enjoy the exclusive right of making it. Claim 6, which differed from claim 5 only by the insertion of the words provided with perforated edges," in describing the film, was not discussed. Compelled to accept this decree as final by the denial of a writ of certiorari, Edison applied for a reissue, dividing his application. ^ * ^ (1, 178.) Infringement of both claims was charged in this suit, but the decree was founded on claim 2, which is the preferred one of the patent. Following the language heretofore quoted relating to the attempt made through claim 5 of the original patent (hereinabove set out), it was said by the Circuit Court of Appeals (114 Fed., 926) : ^'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 impatented; but it is invalid unless the article is new in a patentable sense ; that is, unless its original production involved invention as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill. If it is new only in the sense that it embodies and represents superior workmanship, or is an improvement upon an old article in degree and excellenc(% within all authorities the claim is invalid. (Hatch v. Moffet, 15 Fed. Rep.,