Digest of Decisions of Law and Practice; in the Patent Office and the United States and State Courts in Patents,...
- ISBN-10
- 1230141294
- ISBN-13
- 9781230141299
- Pages
- 304
- Language
- English
- Published
- 2013-09
- Publisher
- Rarebooksclub.com
- Author
- Amos Winfield Hart
Description
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 edition. Excerpt: ...the operative machine. Glidden v. Noble, 71 O. G. 141, C. D. 1895. 393. Ecaubert (Letters Patent No. 434,539, dated August 19, 1890) having abandoned any attempt to make his idea practically available and to develop his theory in fact, while Hofmann (Letters Patent No. 435,835, dated September 2, 1890) conceived the idea, embodied it in means by which it could be carried out, and proceeded to make watch-case centers, and thereby first perfected it, is entitled to be recognized as the real inventor. (Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583; Whitely v. Swayne, id. 687; Reed v. Cutter, 1 Story, 590; Howe v. Underwood, 1 Fish. 166.) Appleton v. Ecaubert, 71 O. G. 1617, C. D. 1895. 394. C. and L. both had the intellectual conception of the invention independently of each other. L. left his thought m abeyance in the presence of the activities of C. in reducing it to tangible form and incorporating it into a car. L. did not proceed promptly after learning that C. had obtained a patent for the improvement, lie stood by and saw C. reduce the invention to practice without any claim to the invention or for remuneration. The reduction and invention were C's. La Flare v. Chase, 72 O. G. 741, C. D. 1895. 395. Doyle not only failed in his attempts to reduce the invention to practice, but also failed to exhibit any interest or faith in the trials of McRoberts which proved successful. The neglectful conduct of Doyle after his attempts and his failure to establish his contention that McRoberts had been carrying out the invention of Doyle and the clear proofs of McRoberts, the patentee, entitle him to an award of priority. Doyle v. McRoberts, 73 O. G. 139, C. D. 1895. 396. Carty in his preliminary statement says "that he reduced the same to practice in part...
