Case ID: f_281/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VAN ORSDEE, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Application of POWER.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted May 9, 1922.
    Decided June 5, 1922.)
    No. 1447.
    Patents (®=375--Sitig!s sale of machine two years before application bars right to patent.
    Proof that a single sale of a machine embodying the claim of _ an application for patent was made more than two years prior to the filing of the application shows a dedication of the invention to public use, which bars applicant’s right to patent under Rev. St. § 4886 (Comp. St. § 9430).
    <§z==>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Application by Nicholas Power for a patent. Application denied, and applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. B. Morton, of New York City, for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
   VAN ORSDEE, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying a patent for an invention on the ground that a machine embodying the claim of the issue was sold by applicant more than two years prior to the date of filing his application for patent.

It conclusively appears that such a sale was made. This bars applicant’s right to a patent, since the sale amounts to a dedication of the invention to public use. R. S. § 4886 (Comp. St. § 9430). Commenting on this provision of the statute, the court, in Smith & Griggs Manufacturing Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 237, 8 Sup. Ct. 122, 126 (31 L. Ed. 141), said:

“A single sale to another of such a machine as that shown to have been in use by the complainant more than two years prior to the date of his application would certainly have defeated his right to a patent.”

See, also, National Cash Register Co. v. American Cash Register Co. 178 Fed. 79, 101 C. C. A. 569; Mayer v. A. & H. G. Mutschler et al., 248 Fed. 911, 161 C. C. A. 29; Wendell et al. v. American Laundry Machinery Co. et al., 248 Fed. 698, 160 C. C. A. 598.

The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.