· 6/15/1854

Burrows v. Wetherill

Citations

  • 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 315
  • 4 F. Cas. 846

Syllabus

<p>Patentability of issue — practice oe the office — presumptions therefrom not conclusive. — The fact that it is the uniform practice of the Office never to raise the issue of interference until after the patentability of an invention, which is supposed to be a previous and preliminary point, has been favorably settled in the mind of the Commissioner, does not raise a presumption of patentability which is conclusive in the further proceedings in the case.</p> <p>Sm — Sm.—The judge upon appeal has jurisdiction of the question of patent-ability of the invention, and may reverse the decision of the Commissioner on this point.</p> <p>Prerequisites to a patent — application duly filed — -reduction to practice. — Where an inventor has complied with the provisions of the law by duly filing an application clearly showing and describing the nature and operation of the invention by specification and drawings verified by oath, be has reduced the principle of the invention to practice for the purpose of obtaining a patent; and if the invention is patentable, he is entitled to the grant of a patent therefor.</p> <p>Operativeness of invention — evidence thereof — successful use by others. — It is essential that the improvement (in case of a machine), as de_ scribed in the specification, shall, as a matter of fact, be capable of operating in the manner described; and it will be sufficient evidence of this fact if it shall appear in the course of testimony taken in an interference proceeding that the invention has been successful in the hands of others, although the applicant himself, having a mistaken idea of the capacity of the machine, has failed to obtain successful results.</p> <p>Invention — principle thereof — inadequate devices for carrying into effect. — The most important part of an invention may consist in the conception of the original idea, in the discovery of the principle in science, or of the law of Nature, stated in the patent, and little or no pains may have been

Judges: Moeselu, Morsell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.