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.

1 A I I .11. 99 (lie (•( >iic('j )1 i( m lt('l( )1il;s to liiiii wlm (•( Jiicci il. The iii.icliiiic, process, or proMiU't is hut ils ni;it('ri;il rcllcx niid ciiilx m1 iincnl . A new idea iiia\' he ciiura fled upon an old iiixciitioii, !>(' distinct I'roni the coiicc])tion whidi proeodcd it, and he an inijn'oxcnient . in sucli case it is Datentahlr. * * * |>,,^ carrying forward, or new or more extended a]>])lication of tlie original th(Mii;-]it, a cliange only in form, ])ro])ortioiis, or de^'ree, the snbstitiition of equivalents, doins: sn])stantially the same tliinj;* in tlie sa.nie way hy sn1)stantially th.e same means with better results, is not siieli invention as will sustain a patent." (Smith V. Nichols. 21 Wall., 112-118.) Sometimes improvements in a product, owing to skill of workmanship or the ])erfection of machinery, consists of su})eri()rity of finish, greater accuracy of detail, and result in increased commercial value, but they do not thereby become patentable. (Smith V. Nichols, 21 Wall., 112-119; Bisdon Locomotive Works V. Medart, 158 U. S., 68-81; Glue Co. V. Vpton, 97 U. S., 36.) Applying those rules to the condition of this case we are of the opiuioii tJiat plaintiff's assignor^ Thomas A, Edison, is not the inventor of the fihn described in chd))/ 2 and that his patent therefor is invalid. The fle.rihle, transparent, or translucent tape-like film prepared for talxinfi photograjdis iras neitlier discovered nor produced hij Edison. It was improved and brought into its present state of perfection hy East)na)i. When exhibited to Edison he seized u]3on it as the thing needed