Bowen v. Herriet

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 310
• 3 F. Cas. 1053

Syllabus

<p>Right of appeal — patentee.—In an interference proceeding a patentee has no right of appeal from an adverse decision of the Commissioner.</p> <p>Sm — Sm—effect of new application. — Where a patentee involved in interference filed a new application for merely substitute or equivalent means for carrying the invention disclosed in his patent into effect, and this application was also included in the interference : Held, That he had no independent status as an applicant, and that an appeal by him from the adverse decision of the Commissioner was virtually an appeal by a patentee. Equivalents — new patent therefor. — A patent covers all equivalent modes of carrying- the invention into effect, although they are not specifically described in the specification, and the patentee is not entitled to a new patent for those equivalent modes.</p> <p>Composition of matter — equivalent ingredients — new application. — Where the patent was for a composition of matter consisting of gutta-percha, oxide of iron, and oxide of antimony in described proportions, which was shown by the testimony to be the preferred form of the invention : Held, That the patentee could not prosecute a new application for a composition in which the oxides of iron and antimony were replaced by a variety of substances which operated in the same manner, but with less success, and were at best but equivalents of the ingredients named in the patent.</p> <p>Case of Pomeroy v. Connison {ante, p. 40) cited and approved.</p>