Jones v. Wetherill

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 409
• 13 F. Cas. 1069

Syllabus

<p>Interference — patentability—jurisdiction.—Construing tlie sixth, seventh, and eighth sections of the act of 1836 together, it is clear that the interference referred to in the eighth section is an interference between patent-able inventions. ' That is a preliminary question necessarily involved in the Commissioner’s decision upon priority of invention, and may be considered by the judge upon appeal.</p> <p>Process — patented machinery. — It seems that the use of a new process, involving patented machinery, must be by the license or permission of the patentee or his assigns.</p> <p>Sm — test of novelty — improved result. — In support of a claim for a new method' or process, it must appear that the result produced is an improvement in the trade — using those words in a commercial sense, as meaning the manufacture of the article as good in quality and at a cheaper rate, or better iu quality at the same rate, or with both of these consequences partially combined.</p> <p>Sm — Sm.—In this class of cases the result is considered all-important. There must, however, be thereby evolved a principle such as will regularly, and not merely occasionally, in the use thereof, produce a like effect.</p> <p>Evidence — caveat—-effect of. — A caveat is admissible in evidence as part of . the res gestee- in proof of the invention so far as it contains a description of the invention and the machinery which was then constructed.</p> <p>Unsuccessful experiments — process.—Where the proofs offered by an inventor in support of his claim to have invented and discovered a new process— as of manufacturing white oxide of zinc — indicate that he did not in his experiments observe the proper chemical conditions — as the proper admixture of the ore and fuel, the depth of the charge, the regulation of the blast, &c. — and that as a matter of fact he failed to obtain successful results: Held, That his efforts amounted to no more than an unsuccessful experiment, and did not entitle him to a patent