« ПретходнаНастави »
covers the fact of reduction to practice, and is sufficient to carry the date
back of the application.
-Prindle v. Brown, 155 Fed. 531....
.84 C. C. A. 45
Where the essence of an invention is the location, form, size, or any
other characteristic of the means employed, the patentee must distinctly
specify the peculiarities in which his invention is to be found.
-American Lava Co. v. Steward, 155 Fed. 731......81 C. C. A. 157
While it is competent, when the circumstances permit it, for an in-
ventor in describing a machine or apparatus which he has devised to make
a claim for a process wbich his patented device is capable of carrying
out, to entitle him to do so, the process must be one capable of being car-
ried out by other means, otherwise the claim is merely for a function of
the machine; and, unless such other means are known or are within the
reach of ordinary skill or judgment, the patentee is bound to point them
-American Lava Co. v. Steward, 155 Fed. 731.........84 C. C. A: 157
An amendment to an application for a patent made to introduce a new
theory of the invention, and which contains new claims covering a process
based on such theory, neither of which were mentioned in the original
application, if permissible as within the invention, should be verified by
the oath of the inventor.
-American Lava Co. v. Steward, 153 Fed. 731......84 C. C. A. 157
§ 3. Terms.
The claim that a British patent covering an invention also patented in
the United States was taken out by an interineddler, and was unauthoriz-
ed, and therefore that its expiration did not affect the term of the Ameri-
can patent, cannot be sustained, where the American patentees authorized
the taking out of a patent in England, and under the other circumstances
named in the opinion, did not repudiate the one in fact obtained until aft-
er its expiration.
-United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co., 155
...84 C. C. A. 76
Article 4 bis, inserted in the international convention for the protec-
tion of industrial property of March 20, 1883, by the additional conven-
tion or act of December 14, 1900, proclaimed by the President August 27,
1902 (32 Stat. 1936, 1939), as controlled and construed by Act March 3,
1903, c. 1019, 32 Stat. 1225 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 663), “to ef-
fectuate the provisions" of such additional act of convention, did not
have the effect of changing the term of an existing United States patent
as fixed by statute at the time of its issuance; and such a patent granted
prior to January 1, 1898, and which is limited by the provisions of Rev. St.
§ 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382], to the term of a prior foreign pat-
ent, is not extended by such additional act.
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co., 1.7.)
.81 C. C. A. 76
$ 4. Construction and operation of letters patent.
Where an applicant for a patent repeatedly acquiesced in the rejection
of broad claims and substituted therefor narrower ones until his applica-
tion was granted, the owner of the patent cannot be heard to insist that
the narrower claims allowed shall cover the same as the broader ones
-St. Louis Street Flushing Mach, Co. v. American Street Flushing
Mach, Co., 1.36 Fed. Jit...
...81 C. C. A. 310
§ 5. Infringement.
The findings of a master as to the profits and damages recoverable from
a defendant for infringement of the Cazier patent No. 696,910 for a trou-
sers hanger held supported by the evidence.
- Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co. v. Cazier, 157 Fed. 88. ....81 C. C. A. 591
$ 6. Decisions on the validity, construction, and infringement of par
ticular patents. The Laass and Hey patent, No. 388,366, and the Hey patent, No. 632,527, for stamp canceling machines of the type in which the letter actuates the printing mechanisin, construed, and held not infringed.
-International Postal Supply Co. of New York v. American Postal
Machines Co., 156 Fed. 362...
.84 C. C. A. 200 The French and Meyer patent, No. 412.704, for a sole sewing machine, expired September 17, 1902, with the expiration of the term of the prior British patent, No. 13,366, of 1888, granted to the same patentees for substantially the same invention. -United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co., 15.5 Fed. 842....
...84 C. C. A. 70 The Stanley patent, No. 469,809, for a system of electrical distribution, was not anticipated by the Zipernowski and Deri article published in London in 1885. -Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Montgomery Electric Light & Power Co., 156 Fed. 582.
.84 C. C. A. 318 The Dolan patent, No. 589.432, for an acetylene gas burner, and the process embodied therein, claims 1, 2, and 3 are void (1) for anticipation, especially by the French patent to Bullier of April 20, 1897; and, additions thereto (2), for indefiniteness of description; and (3) because they were new claims based on a new theory of the principle of the invention added by an amendment to the application made in the Patent Office which was not verified.
-American Lara Co. v. Steward, 155 Fed. 731........84 C. C. A. 157 The Potter patent, No. 689,906, for a detonating device for exploding toy torpedoes, is void for lack of invention and anticipation.
--Potter v. Lake Shore Novelty Co., 155 Fed. 278.....84 C. C. A. 160 The Ottofy patent, No. 795,059, for a street flushing cart, covers a device for scouring and flushing streets by forcing water under pressure from a tank located on a moving cart, connected by a pipe extending downward to near the surface of the street, forward of the rear wheels, to nozzles having narrow elongated delivery apertures, and so adjusted that the water is forced out of the apertures in a flat sheet nearly parallel with the surface of the street in a forward and lateral direction, so as to loosen up the dirt and force it away to the sides of the street, and into the gutters, without injury to the surface of the street. The combination of parts by which such result is effected was not anticipated, and discloses invention, but the patent is limited by the prior art to the combination and means shown for producing such flat stream nearly parallel to the street. As so construed helit infringed. -St. Louis Street Flushing Mach. Co. v. American Street Flushing Mach. Co., 156 Fed. 574..
..84 C. C. A. 340
§ 7. Patents enumerated.
| 412,704. Sole sewing machine, held ENGLISH.
to have expired.
76 469,809. Electrical distribution, held 1888.
gas burner, 13,366. Sole sewing machine, cited 76 589,312. Acetylene
652,547. Street sprinkling machine,
689,906. Detonating device for ex-
ploding, toy torpedoes,
held void for lack of in-
699,910. Trousers hanger, held valid
736,134. Street sprinkling machine,
736,135. Street sprinkling machine,
795,059. Street flushing cart, con-
strued and held infring-
Subrogation on payment, see “Subrogation.”
For infringement of copyright, see “Copyrights," § 2.
§ 1. Offenses and responsibility therefor.
On the trial of a defendant charged with a violation of Rev. St. § 5395
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3654), which denounces a penalty against one
who “knowingly swears falsely” in making any oath under any law re-
lating to naturalization, it is sufficient to warrant conviction if defend-
ant knowingly and willfully testified falsely, and it is not necessary that
his act should also have been corrupt or malicious.
-Holmgren v. United States, 156 Fed. 439...........84 C. C. A. 301
To support an indictment for subornation of perjury based on the al-
leged procurement of the making of a false affidavit or oath before the
receiver or register of a land office in support of an application to enter
land under the homestead law, it is not essential that the affidavit should
have been subscribed as well as sworn to before such officer.
- Nurnberger v. United States, 156 Fed. 721..........84 C. C. A. 377
§ 2. Prosecution and punishment.
Instructions on the trial of a defendant charged with perjury in nat-
uralization proceedings, under Rev. St. § 5395 (U. S. Conip. St. 1901, p.
3654), considered and approved.
-Holmgren v. United States, 136 Fed. 439....... .84 C. C. A. 301
An indictment for subornation of perjury in procuring another to make
a false oath or affidavit before the receiver of 2 land ollice to secure an
entry of land, which avers that such oath or aitidavit was made in sup-
port of “a certain application in writing to enter under the homestead
laws of the United States, subject to entry at said land oflice," certain
land described, is sufficient after verdict as showing that the land describ-
ed was at the time public land of the United States subject to homestead
entry at such land office.
--Nurnberger v. United States, 156 Fed. 721..........84 C. C. A. 377
On the trial of such an indictment, the tract book kept by the register
of the land office is admissible in evidence to establish the fact that the
lands to which the application related were public lands subject to home
stead entry at such office, and it is competent for the register as a witness
to explain the meaning of abbreviations used therein.
-Nurnberger v. United States, 136 Fed. 721.........84 C. C. A. 377
On the trial of a defendant charged with subornation of perjury in pro-
curing homestead entrymen to make the required oath that the entry
was not made for the benefit of any other person, when in fact they had
agreed t: convey the land to defendant for a stipulated price as soon as.
they obtained title, it was error to refuse to permit defendant to testify
that he made no such agreements, but that the agreements actually inade,
as be understood them, left the conveyance optional with the other par-
ties or to other facts, which tended to show that his act was not willful
nor corrupt, as required by the statute to constitute the crime charged.
-Nurnberger v. United States, 156 Fed. 721..... ....84 C. C. A. 377
Instructions, given on the trial of a defendant charged with suborna-
tion of perjury in procuring homestead entrymen to make false oaths,
held erroneous and misleading, in that they authorized the jury to con-
vict in case they found that any statement made by affiants in their
affidavits was false and was intentionally sworn to, when there was
evidence tending to show that some of the recitals in the aflidavits re-
specting the intention to reside on and improve the land as affiants un-
derstood the law were not applicable to their entries, and that their act
in swearing to the same was not therefore willful and corrupt, as re-
quired by Rev. St. $ 2291, as amended by Act March 3, 1877, c. 122, §
2, 19 Stat. 404 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1391), to constitute the crime of
-Nurnberger v. United States, 156 Fed. 721........84 C. C. A. 377
Liability of receiver, see "Receivers," § 2.
Particular causes or means of injury.
Operation of railroads, see “Railroads," 88 1, 2.
Particular classes of persons injured.
Employé, see “Master and Servant," 88 2–5.
Traveler on highway crossing railroad, see "Railroads," $ 2.
Trespasser on demised premises, see "Landlord and Tenant," $ 2.
Construction of instructions, see "Trial," $ 2.
Evidence of damages, see "Damages," $ 1.
Pleading damages, see “Damages," $ 1.
Relevancy of evidence, see “Evidence," $ 2.
In bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 1.
In pleading, see “Pleading," $ 2.
In civil actions, see "Pleading," $ 3.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," $ 4.
Admissions in pleading as evidence, see “Evidence," $ 3.
Allegations as to particular facts, acts, or transactions.
See "Damages.” § 1; "Release,” g 2.
Statute of limitations, see "Limitation of Actions,” $ 2.
In particular actions or proceedings.
See "Ejectment," $ 1; “Equity," $ 3; “Fraud," $ 2.
For unfair competition, see "Trade Marks and Trade-Names," § 2.
Indictment or criminal information or complaint, see "Indictment and Infor-
Pleas in criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law," $ 4.
§ 1. Form and allegations in general.
Where plaintiff deposited money to indemnify his sureties on injunction
bonds against loss on account of a judgment rendered against them and
plaintiff on such bonds, a complaint to recover such money from the de-
positary does not state a cause of action, where it alleges merely that the
judgment was satisfied on the docket by the clerk of the court on return
of an execution issued thereon "fully satisfied"; there being no allegation
that the judgment has been in fact paid and satisfied. Nor is such com-
plaint made good by an allegation that the sureties are not liable on such
judgment, which is a mere conclusion of law.
-Cambers v. First Nat. Bank of Butte, 156 Fed. 482..84 C. C. A. 292
§ 2. Declaration, complaint, petition, or statement.
A declaration, in an action to recover for a tort committed by railroad
receivers, against a purchaser which succeeded to the property, is not
bad for duplicity because it alleges as grounds of liability an express
assumption of liability for all claims against the receivership, and also
that the defendant succeeded to betterments and improvements made by
the receivers from earnings of the receivership which were liable for
-Gray v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 156 Fed. 736.....
84 C. C. A. 392
§ 3. Plea or answer, cross-complaint, and affidavit of defense.
An answer construed, and, although lacking in clearness of statement,
held to sufficiently plead a counterclaim as against a general demurrer.
-Fish v. First Nat. Bank, of Seattle, Wash., 157 Fed. 87....
81 C. C. A. 502
Of insurance, see "Insurance."
See "Adverse Possession."
To sustain suit to quiet title, see “Quieting Title," § 1.
§ 1. Offenses against postal laws.
A scheme by which certificates are issued by a corporation, on each of
which the holder agrees to pay $1 per week, subject to forfeiture for non-
payment, and about 75 per cent. of which payments are paid into a “mu-
tual benefit credit fund" until all certificates prior in date have matured
and been canceled, when his own certificate shall mature, and he shall be
paid from such fund the sum of $2 for each week such certificate has been
in force, provided there is so much in the fund, not exceeding however
$160, is a lottery within the meaning of Rev. St. $ 3894 (U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 2659), and any person engaged in conducting such scheme by means
of letters or circulars sent through the mails is guilty of a criminal of-
fense under said section.
-Fitzsimmons v. United States, 156 Fed. 477.........84 C. C. A. 297