The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-04-05

can monopoze The use of air. fire, water but it is
equally true that any can monopoZe the use ell ar
fire. or water upon certain principles OF operation whch
he NAV have invented discovered and this precisely
what the respective claimants IN ms case demanded as
their rights and gave rise TO the interference. VIZ; each
claimed the right to and exclude DINERS from using
gayanic power mark certain signs (which signs have
been already patented by said Morse upon chemically
prepared paper through single circuit OF conductors
"a single circuit Of conductors, consisting either wholly
of wire part OF wire and part of earth, for ee
graphic purposes was not nep; the Signs or Signals to
be marked iel0, the having been before
patented by said Morse and chemically prepared paper
for receiving Geographic signs by gavansn neU
the same having been patented in England in 1888 by Mr.
+. Davy. Moreover the of SINGLE Geographic
cult for marking the aforesaid signs upon paper not
the having been before patented by said Morse
| "Neher party claimed any one or any two OF the
made up Of the three combined; and the advantages
claimed TO have been discovered by each, in these com
bned operations, Identical"
II, then, the matters not paenabe In them
Sc YES, there is nothing patentabe IN Mr. Morses claim
LETT to be nterered with except has CLAIM OF patent Tor
his invention OF the machinery described IN his speclca
ton, for his combination OF machinery and Materials
described therein. The CAIN OF each applicant there
fore, reduced to the claim for The combination of
cnery and materials which he has invented and does
include any of the matters claimed in his specification
| which not now patentabe.
These combinations seem to me TO be far from denti
cal Mr. Balm includes in his combination the use of
the perforated paper for composing the communication
and of the style which passes the electric current through
the perforated paper and the machinery for transmitting
same time. 1t said that the sly is not but he
makes it ingredient in his combination, and IN that
respect his combination differs from that OF Mr. Morse
and it is very important item IN connexion with the
perforated paper. He includes IN his combination new
paenabe matter with Old matter, not paenabe, and
thereby makes new patentable combination This new
matter, thus introduced into the combination, adj
mltted to be paenabe itself without combination with
the old unpaenabe matter; and indeed it to be
great Improvement IN the TRANSMISSION OF Geographic
information
But is said that Mr. Balm is only authorized to obtain
separate patent for each of those Inventions and cannot
claim patent TOR his combination of the old and
new together IT, however his new combination of old
materials be paenabe (Which must be admitted, or it
would not interfere with Mr. Morses claim,l it seems to
be not the less paenabe because it includes the
matter in connexion with the Old, The old matter may
not ITSELF be patentabe but joined 10 the matter
combination may be formed which may be patented
He not Obliged to take separate patents Tor each new
patentable matter He does not ask for them; he
may be willing to ask only for limited use OF those
mat,ers-to wi: IN combination; and not for excu
slve use OF them Tor every purpose to which they may be
applicable;
rangement of old materials, when consequence thereof
effect is produced may be the subject of patent
This effect may consist either in the production of
article, or in making an old one in better manner, or at
cheaper rate" "This manufacture may be made of
different substances mingled together of different
chimes formed into one, of the arrangement of many
old combinations" each distinct part of the manufac-
upon which it is founded may have been long known,
and yet the manufacture may be the proper subject for
patent is not for those parts and principles, but for
the and useful compound, thing thus produced
by combination, that the grant is made; It is for
bining and using things before known, with something
then invented so as TO produce effect which was never
before attained"
The counsel of Mr.. Morse in argument, said:
at is obvious, and admitted by adversaries, that
and structure from Bains But form, and structure are
very important matters in machinery and if they enable
the operator to do the work in better with
more less expense, in less time, is inter
Terence; Improvement
may have patent
When the application is for patent for combination
OF machinery and materials, form and structure become
Substance, they of the oil the invention and
admission that Morses ins,ru nen is very different
thing IN It's form aad structure from Bans, is adms
SION OF iact, which is Prin1 Jace evidence at least
that there interference between the two, and throws
the burden of proof on the other side.
There was no evidence laid before the Commissioner
of Patents upon the question of interference that he
must have adjudged the interference upon comparison
OF the two specifications possibly without considering
that the only patent which either could obtain would be
patent for his own combination-all the materials of
which Mr. MoFse's combination consists being old, and
not patentabe.
! The question is not now whether the claims of Mr.
Balm and Mr.. Morse interfere to matters not now
patentabe but whether they interfere matters noc
Patentabte; and the only matter patentabIe in Mr.
| M orSe's specification Is his combination
chlnery and materials That combination constitutes his
machine and his machine is admitted be a very differ
e EN- lhln3 IN us form ana structure from MT BANS
Form and structure constitute the identity OF machinery
The combination consists IN form and structure and the
patent if issued, will, presume be issued for the form
and structure of the instrument
Ii being admitted that the form and structure of Mr.
BANS instrument is very different from Morses there
can be no interference IN that respect and if form and
structure constitute the identity of machinery there is no
interference IN the two Instruments and if the nsru-
mens the combinations the result of the combna-
| Tons Tor which patents claimed there is no
interference in the two instruments regard to any mat
ter now patentable.
But it Is not necessary to rely alone upon the alms
sion OF Mr. Morses counsel to show that there a gre II
bpi ma
applicants 10 effect the object the rapid transmission
OF intelligence by the power of the electric current ANY
one who will compare the two specification and draw
lngs and models, will at perceive the difference
paentable Improvement Is not interference.
The COMMISSIONER. IN his written decision SAYS: 4" Ii
appears from the records of the office that the applica-
ton by SAID Alexander BAN, subject of Great Britain
was made April Is, lSiS and upon examination of his
claims, It was found that the before mentioned claim
could be admitted TO patent, invention of like char
acter appearing in the public records of the office nor in
any printed publication. Prior, however, to the final is.
sue OF the case the secret archives consulted and
It was found that an application filed by Samuel + B
Morse, January 90 1915, had been there deposited in
compliance with provisions of law, which presented
claims conflicting with those, before mentioned set up BY
! said Balm"
| This shows that but for the supposed interfering
claim of Mr. Morse, Mr. Balm was entitled 10 his pat
emit and if there be interference in respect to patenta
BILE matter he is still entitled patent for his own CON
bination.
But the counsel for Mr. Morse say: "There is an in
terfeence-that Bans third claim palpably covers the
whole of Morses first claim and, if granted, Balm could
do all that Morse claims exclusive rig to do he could
write Morses characters precisely as Morse does and
that herein consists the interference
q paeDtablP. in