Fay v. Mason

Citations

• 120 F. 506
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5286

Syllabus

<p>1. Patents — Reissues.</p> <p>Where a reissue is for the same invention, a broader claim than in the original patent will not invalidate it.</p> <p>2. Same — Date of Invention — Evidence.</p> <p>The date of invention is presumptively that of the issue of the patent, and evidence of a prior conception of the completed invention must be clear, positive, and unequivocal. The mere assertion of the patentee that he conceived the invention on a prior date, unaccompanied by corroborative evidence showing that his conception was sufficiently specific and definite to enable him to construct a machine (if the patent be for a machine) which is capable of successful operation, is insufficient.</p> <p>8. Same — Suit for Infringement — Pleading.</p> <p>The rule that the burden rests upon the complainant in a suit for infringement to prove that his invention was prior to defendant’s applies only where the issue is raised by defendant by giving the 30 days’ notice required by Rev. St. § 4920 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3394]; otherwise complainant’s patent is sufficient evidence prima facie that he was the original inventor.</p> <p>4. Same — Infringement—Ironing Machine.</p> <p>The Fay reissue patent, No. 11,664 (original, No. 560,819), for a machine for smoothing the edges of collars and cuffs, claims 1, 2, 3, and 4, and No. 678,949, to the same inventor, for an improvement thereon, both held not anticipated, valid, and infringed.</p> <p>¶ 1. See Patents, vol. 38, Cent. Dig. § 208.</p>