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. 97 2r)L>: W'incfshr v. ( ' nl hou it , 11 ULitcii., lii:>; Kj'CcIsH)!' \(( <IIc ('(f. v. I HHni \( ( (//(' ('(}.^ :V2 Fed. Rcj)., 221 ; Smil/i v. A'/V/zo/n. 21 Wall., 112; J/isdon fjocfntiof i rr \V(n-Ls v. Mrdnrf, 158 U. S., 79.) ' * The lilin was not new, and if the (»tli('r cliaractcrist ics of tlio product arc not new, oi arc new only in the sense that tliey add to the article merely a superiority of finish or a greater accuracy of detail, the claim is destitute of patentable novelty." The claims of the reissue are the result of an attempt to overcome the effect of that decision. Answerino; an objection in the office that there was no necessity for the complete description of the camera apparatus, the applicant said: ''We also think it desirable that the complete apparatus should be described becaus(^ the differences which distinguish applicant's film from the prior films are largely due to the features of novelty in the apparatus." The following is extracted from the deposition of Thomas A. Edison taken in the case against the American Mutoscope Co. and used in evidence in this ease: 176 XQ. AVhy do you suppose you did not refer in any of your caveats to the character or composition of material of the fihn which you used in any of the foiins of apparatus for taking or reproducing photographs of an object in motion ? A. I don't know why I did not. I was not interested in the manufacturing or making of the photographic material.