In re Everson

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 406
• 8 F. Cas. 908

Syllabus

<p>Sufficiency of invention — accident—utility of change. — Where tlie utility of the change and the consequences resulting therefrom (in case of a mar chine) are such as to show that the inventive faculty has been exercised, though in point of fact the change was the result of accident, the requisite test of a sufficient amount of invention may exist.</p> <p>Sm — colorable alterations — double use. — Where the change consists merely in the employment of an obvious substitute, the discovery and application of which could not have involved the exercise of the inventive faculty in any considerable degree, the change will then be treated as merely an unsubstantial colorable variation, or a double use.</p> <p>Sm — -Sm—incidental changes. — Incidental changes in the arrangement of the parts of a structure, arising out of an obvious application of the same to a new use, and effected by the means of well-known devices, are not patentable.</p>