The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-04-18

| into the " error"
!. The original patent was therefore not inope
ratiye or invalid, nom tns's6se'e"ey Of DESCRIPTION
2. The commissioner could not decide that 4
| was invalid or imperative, from his having claim
| ed in il more than he had right to" because,
contains all that the first did, with large addition.
II is evident that the grand object of Goodyear
in procuring the separate patent was to endeavcs.
thereby, to secure for himself the benefit of prin-
ciple which he certainly had not discovered at the
time of his original patent, and from which CLAIM
to it could not have been excluded by any one OF
the contingencies provided for by act Of Congress,
or recognized in the judicial decisions-the curing
of simple Caoutchouc alone, by heat. This is the
grand fact. The all essential inreHtion--the priv
cirle, which, in its value and importance, over
wheims all the others claimed, and compared with
which they sink into insignificance.
Notwithstanding the strong tendency Of the judi
cal opinions TO sustain the decision OF the Conn
missioner Of Patents, it cannot be denied that.
son Che very face Of the patent tfset tcthont any
auxiliary eridence, ii as agYpre"t that the COM
missioner has gone beyond his authority.
As to the subject of fraud or connivance between
the patenee and the commissioner, il need not and
does not form part of this inquiry: The cause
have stated is sufficient to establish the invalldity
of the letters patent of the 18th December, 1919;
and, for the reasons have set forth, am clearly
of opinion that these letters patent have unawfully
issued, and are invalid. GEORGE GRISCOM.
MIR. JOHN THORNLEY,, Philadelphia.
Upon examination OF the patent issued to q.
Goodyear, on the 18th day OF June, A. ID. 1871,
and one purporting to be a reissue OF portion OF
the former, for an improvement in the processes
for the manufacture of India Rubber, under date
of December rs, A. ID. 1Si9 il appears that one rs
plainly for triple compound, and the treatment
of that compound by exposure to heat at high
temperature.
The other is principally for the treatment of q
double compound or rubber alone by heat, at high
temperature in certain methods. The one may
cover wide range Of manufacture, which the
other does not The double compound may be an
element of many IA composition, which the
triple compound is not found. Yet more frequent
ly will the rubber be used alone in the arts At all
events, they are in law, different combinations
Now il is familiar rule of patent law, that's
patent for one combination is a distinct thing from
patent for different combination A court
which should critically examine the two patents in
the light Of this rule would it seems to me- decide
that the two patents were for different things.
And, therefore the judicial act Of the Commits
sioner in issuing the second patent, exceeded his
authority and is not binding upon the Courts
Providence, March 8, 1850 c. s. BRADLEY.
OPINION or SAMUEL AMEs AND ABRAHAM PAINE.
Our opinion is asked upon the question:
Are the Letters Patent issued TO Charles Good
year, on the 18th Of December, A. ID. lSi9, as
reissue of those granted to him on tho 10Th Of
June, A. ID. 1871, now surrendered, void and
Illegal on their face without the aid OF testimony!
In comparing Goodyear's original with his re-
issued patent, no one can help being struck with
the fact, that in the former he speaks merely oil
the effects of heat applied in the mode described
TO his compound of India Rubber, sulphae and
carbonate other salts of lead which no doubt was
far as he got in 1874 while in the latter he arfu-
ly edges in that the first part OF his invention con-
sists in The application OF heat in any mode to India
Rubber combined WITH or in the presence oil SUI
phur and specifies its application TO his compound
only in the second place, and dispensing even with
the lead in that, till at last he craws up by degrees
to the assertion that "the leading feature in my In
vention and that which chiefly constitutes the sub
stance of its usefulness, is the discovery
r Al. Ii, sxI, -. I..,a Rulah -
action of artificial heat, above that TO which
the fabric would be exposed in ordinary or COM
mon use"
His process of fitting his new specification to his
old one, (more ingenious by the way than any OF
his other inventons,) is finished by changing his
| old claim Of the application of heat in combination
with the fabric formed of cotton batting and his
| compound into simple claim of the application OF
heat TO India rubber alone, for the purpose OF curing
il as his first claim; while he sinks the application
Of heat 10 his compound TO the rank OF his second
claim. taking care leave out also the original
restriction of IL, expressed in the words =" in COM
bnation with" the fabric Of cotton batting and the
compound
Ii is indeed, difficult 10 conceive how any man Of
sense with common knowledge OF the advance
made between the years 1874 and lSt9, IN the cur
ing Of India rubber without particle Of aid from
Goodyear, could mistake, upon the the thing, the
meaning of all this
Again, with the original patent before him, il il
difficult to conceive how the Commissioner could
come 10 the conclusion, that the plain and papable
differences between II and the patent in the form IN
which 1t was proposed TO him to reissue II, arose
| from "inadyertency, accident or mistake, and
that too, without any fraudulent or deceptive in
tenon the part of the patentee especially II no
| knew anything. and he was bound TO know much
more before acting, about the progress Of the art Of
curing India rubber, between the years 1874 and
| 1919. The old patent is worded cautiously.
especially in the most important, the claiming part
OF the specification, as 10 Indicate not only no in
adyertency, accident or mistake" IN II, but on the
contrary, the most studied care the part OF the
patentee, so 20 confine his claim that he should not
fall into that danger, Of which the specification IL
self evnces, that he was most fcarfully conscious.
Of claiming what he knew he had never invented
Indeed, the slightest comparison between tho
original and amended patents, proves such art and
conriyance on the part Of the patentee, in weaving
together the little he knew in 1874, with the much
that everybody, without his aid, knew in 1919. 10
as TO make two things, essentially different, appear
10 be alike, as OF itself 10 Indicate fraud; and al all
| events to prove that IL Goodyear in 1874 had in
ven what he specified in 1St9 he must have care
carefully worded his first spscfcation.with the in
tent to conceal his invention from the public.
The marks Of fraud practiced upon one, new to
the duties Of his office strong, that IL Is di
cult 10 pronounce that intelligent jury, or a
sound judge, would not, upon mere inspection OF
the papers, without further proof than they Afford
be justified in finding fraud in the surrender and
renewal Of this patent This question, as appears
from the decision of the supreme Court IN the
before quoted (Stimpson W.. Westchester Rail-
Road Company is still open; and Il Is the only
question Of fact, pertaining TO the right OF the Com
missioner to reissue the patent which Is open. AZ
II ~, however, question Of fact, and as evidence,
and especially internal evidence afforded by the in
| spcciion Of documents, affects different minds
differently, and is in general capable Of being aided
| or explained by parol testimony, we are inclined tn
/ think that a court would require something more
than these papers, before they would set aside the
/ reissued patent upon the ground Of fraud
| We cannot, therefore, pronounce Goodycar's re-
issued patent void upon its face upon any ground,
but must hold u. ms the law holds patent origi-
nay issued, rvin'a face evidence Of the right Of
| the paientce 10 the invention claimed therein
The consequence Of this Is, that upon the strength
OF IT, njupctions may in the first instance be grant
ed, and orders for bail and attachment will be
/ made, 10 the ruin Of many establishments, which
have long used the curing process described IN u
/ At the same time, we cannot. in conclusion, but
express the opinion, that intelligent court or Ju-
/ ~ can, upon full proofs, investigate Goodyears
/ right 20 the invention described in the amended
rafcnt Militant canning The conclusion that In ta