New-York daily tribune., 1849-03-21

or cor. az usr- i-rs a-r. a-orr. - s-t1 -g la
rrrrr- sF.r- t3rs a..t--
Ire coun,el Of Mr Morse. in argument said
" lf . p'fols sf1 sfrft-1 - or t1f1rtife ai -
,'''ss.ai ven 4s--li tsas - J-- sas fi-''urf n
But Jor- and a-4ovs are very imporan; mstiers in
machinery and II they enable the operator 20 DO the
work Ia = better manner or with more ease. or less
expense or 10 less time Is Interference but "a
Improvement Tor which the inventor usy have patent
When the application IL for patent for combination
Of machinery and ms.erss form and structure become
ssbaapcf; they Of the essence Of the Invention
and an admission that HOrses Instrument is very c!f
ierent thing IN is form and structure from Bans s
admission Of fact which Is pria scd evidence a.
least that there s Interference between the two
and throws the burden Of proof on the other side.
There no evidence laid before the Comnissioner
u pa,els upon the question Of Interference that be
mus, have sdjadged the interference upon compari
Of the two specifications possibly without consid
erng that the oniy patent which either could obtain
would be patent for his own combination, al the
.eriss Of which Mr. M0rse's combination consists Being
I'd and not now pstentsble.
The question Ia not now, whether the claims Of Nr
Bsn and Mr. Morse interfere as to matters no, now
pa,eniable but whether they interfere TO matters
n0r PGieHi0be and the only matter now paenisole In
Mr.. MOrse's specification, IS his own combustion OF
machinery and materials. That combination cOnsu'
tgtes his machine and his machine is admitted 10 be
very different thiug In s form and structure from Nr
Bans Form and structure constitute the Identity of
mscrinery. The combination consists In form and
s,rHctye aud the patent If issued. will presume, be
issued for the form ana structure Of the instrument
II being admitted that the form and structure OF Mr.
Bsns Instrument Il very different from Morses there
be interference IN that respect and II form and
structure constitute the identity OF machinery there IL
interference in the two instruments and II the In
struments the combinations the result Of the
combinations for which patents claimed, there
is no interference In the two instruments In regard 70
any N after noT patenisDle
But IL 10 not necessary 10 rely alone upon the admis
sion Of Mr. Morses counsel u show that there is
great difference between the machinery used By toe
cOntending applicants effect the object the rapid
transmssiOn Of lgence by the power Of the cleo
tric current. Any who will compare the two sPe
cihcstions ard drawings and models will a. once per
ceive thc difference.
A ps,entaDle improvement u not an Interference
The Commissioner, in his written decision says.
spfsan from e record. Of ~ o- tha; Ne .rp .sios y
a. noon sr,a.n of boz. cs ~. 4 "a. found tlat
oned claim could b ADMITTED yafenf no trsnon Of ts hn
pueosu Prof howeysr % Tie ha, Of ne o'e ts ecf-,
sfchvs. ted and our3 hat soa, -
smus sor'- Jan ~ So had ICES here i-pos I'd CON
rlancs s provisions Of law shch pf,ssnsd eas o- lag N
iaos, before ueatF1ee, e, uP oy 'a.s Baia'
This shows that but for the supposed interfering
claim Of Mr. Morse Mr.. Ban was entitled 10 bis patent
and II there be interference In respect 10 patentabe
matter, he Is still entitled to patent for bis own com
binstOn.
b., the counsel for Mr. MorSe say
There a'e-reaee-thai Ban, ihi e'i rarssy o9,sr'
, as No. No. o. .5. ,. 10 81 \. oaS -ri. nr.-
hcts'' precisely Morse doss snd that therein consists The 10
But the only matter now patentabe. and claimed 10
Mr. Morses spech ation 10 h peculiar continuation o.
mqOHi and machinry a. MtreiH des1ibed All the ms
terals used 10 that combination are old and he VII
not under this patent be entitled 10 the exclusive use
Of any of them separately, In any other combination
than lha, which he has described In his specification
There cannot be patent for q piaeP< nor for the
application Of principle nor for an effect Two per
sons nav use the same prmrlpe and produce the
effect Jy different mans without Interference or In
fringement and each would ba entitled to psten, for
his own inycntion-G0dsgs, 90. &C. "a.
So in the present case, although the power used by
both aUplic and subject the same.
yet, as the elect Is produced by means which appear
10 different as 10 prevent an Interference ne
qatsH Of priority Of tarfHfsn does not eTits IL t.
therefore not under he sth section OF the act
Of 1886 but under the 1th section Of the same act 20
that each Of the applicants may have patent Tor the
combination which he has invented end claimed and
described in bis speciheaton-proyided he shall have
complied with all the requisites Of the law to eniiIle
him ~ pstont.
If this were doubtful question should think II my
duty 10 render the Judgment 90 as TO give Mr.
Bal. the same righto have the validity OF his patent test
ed by the ordinary tribunasoi the country which NJ
Morse would enjoy 20 his patent and finally 70 obtain
For II the Commissoner and the Judge, should reject
Mr. Bans application for patent the decision would
BE- final and conclusive against him, unless he could OBJ
tain relief by bil in equity under the 10th section OF
the act Of 1896 and the 10Th section OF the act Of loy
which it 10 said. Is doubtful
am therefore, Of opinion, and so decide
That there s no Interference In the claims OF these
applicants In relation any matter Contained In their
respective specifications H0r Paentable and therefore
that Samuel f. b. Morse is entitled to patent for the
combiu alton which he has invented, elsmed and de.
scribed In his specification dra wings and model. And
that Alexander Balm is entitled 10 patent for the com
bnstion which he has invented, claimed and described
ia bis specification drawings and model provided
they shall respectively have compiled win al the re
qustes Of the law TO entte them 10 their respective
patents.
deem IL unnecessary therefore to decide upon any
other points involved BY the reasons OF sPpeh
w. CRANCH.
Washington, D. c, March 10, lsi9.