Stephenson v. Hoyt

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 292
• 22 F. Cas. 1303

Syllabus

<p>Interference — patentee—how restrioted in his proofs. — In an interference proceeding a patentee is not restricted in his proofs to the exact point of invention covered by his patent that is claimed therein. If he prove to be the prior inventor of anything claimed by the applicant, the Commissioner may act upon such information, and his decision thereon may be reviewed by the judge upon appeal. The question is not the same as in a suit for the infringement of the patent.</p> <p>Matter shown in prior patent- — effect of.- — A subsequent inventor may have a patent for matters included in a prior patent, but not particularly specified and claimed therein, if he be an independent inventor, and the invention was not perfected, but was abandoned by the patentee.</p> <p>Date of invention — drawinq.—An invention may date from the time a drawing was made disclosing the same.</p> <p>Interference — question stated. — In an interference the question is not whether one invention is better in some respects than the other, but whether there is a substantial interference in the principle of the two inventions.</p> <p>Sm — substantial identity — purpose.—Two inventions are the same in principle when they produce the same result by substantially the same mode of operation — as protecting the rear step of an omnibus by a shield moving with the door — notwithstanding the form of the devices and their mode of attachment may be different.</p> <p>Sm — testimony of experts. — The testimony of practical persons versed in the art to which the invention relates may be considered in judging of the substantial identity of the inventions.</p>