The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-04
The Patent Once
To the Editor of the Union !;


day or since had occasion to point out certain
OF very grave character contained IN
COMMUNICATION IN your COLUMNS; and to-day 4 hnd
another communication in relation TO the same matter,
over the signature of !" One VINO Knows" This latter
admits that the statements OF your FIRST IN
relation TO the eIenson were untrue and calls that
violent and unjustabe attack upon subordnae- In the
Patent Office mistake in single particular" THIS Is
mild Well, call it mistake But" Who Knows
further that your first correspondent "was not
much mistaken with regard the circumstances OF the
issue" This is very safe remark-no circumstance in
relation to the reissue having been mentioned, except
that the patent essued subordinate" acting as
Commissioner; and this nobody has disputed merely
objected to his careless and prodga use oil ephes The
whole thing reminds me OF an anecdo,e respecting an
placed under certain tree in certain held and which
when sought was not to be found, On being taken to
there and the there but the deer not two
truths To lie do pretty we'll Tor All INDIAN Such
the apology One Who Knows" makes for his plain"
friend The deer in both instances is wanting. and no
body cares for the rest
Zone Who Knows" charges with making many
Measurements, &c. He has, however, specified but one.
He probably found it cheaper 10 say that there many
than point them out But the particular where he
has conlradiced shall fasten the misstaememt to
him.
Your last correspondent proceeds the facts
attending the reissue OF the Wordsworth patent he
understands them and let il be understood that he is
the author OF these statements They were not made by
your first correspondent who has enough to answer for
without them Your last correspondent states follows
"l,w proposed reissue it 1.-THE Woodwork PATENT
in several patents, and specifications
were filed Tor that purpose The application was taken up
OF February, isia addressed letter either the app
cant his agent mol obecng to the form OF appicaion
void, and that he should decide, Ike, &c.
I Now directly contradict this statement and assert
that Mr. Esworlhs letter above mentioned did OBJ ect to
the form of application, and that II did not suggest
that the original patent void, that he should
decide. The first paragraph in his letter expresses the
opinion that the application IS misconceived, and two
thirds of what follows devoted to showing that it is
not case for division into three patents All the
Marks in this part OF the letter, about original inventions
and combinations, and the conflict between the several
patents &c &c. intended TO show that the patent
cannot be divided into three parts or that three patents
cannot be granted upon the suuenderng OF the old patent
three patents but tina, the whole subject. if paientable
should be covered by one, he then goes on to
state that he has rfra,ned from srprsssng an opin-
non in relation 10 the originality OF the invention,
because that question IS 10 be tried IN COURT nxd
he does not wish 10 do anything oh,eh tcN influence
he decision in he case He says, further. that he
u decide the merits of this, decision insisted
and further, that after the decision the original patent
canno, be returned Far from suggesting that the org
nal patent is void he gives his good
they arefo retaining from the expression OF any opin-
ION on the subject These reasons were doubtless con-
sidered sufficient, and the applicant was satisfied to
await the result OF the trial IN court
But let 20 to the law and 10 the testimony in this case
The following is copy of Mr. Esworihs letter, which
is the subject OF discussion Let speak Tor lise And
ask is there anything in it which binds future Com
missioner examiner in relation to the originality OF the
invention : #fa
Il THE UNITED STATES PATINT oTvICE.
To pr,ons 10 these presents shall eo~s geefiwg
This certify that the anncxedis aue copy from the
records of this office. .A
In testimony whereof, l. Thomas Ewbank Commissioner
Patents, have caused the seal OF the Patent OMce
to be hercunio affixed this Arst day of February. in
SEAL the OF Lord thousand eight hu nded
and hty-one and OF the indie pendence Of tho
! United States the seventy fifth
PATENT OrrIcK, February Q, isll
Sra Ia reference the three Of Mr. Woodwork
applied for the surrender of a single patent remark
that Mt present sd vised think the applications have
been msconceived
The old patent for three distinct parts improved
cynder, improved cutters, and circular reduce
boards to given thickness The last has been hitherto
discaimed, eud hence the first only remain. The
original for original tnrentiorno for COM
bnatons. The law allows patent containing distinct
parts be surrendered, and the distinct parts II new to
form patents Each application must be exsWineds s
all applications made examined, Tor originality
Each granted the surrender must bs sspa-
Ir0s and disftncf, and susceptible OF sac hha As Wnont
Interfering It'll each other Ns.t.R
Tie numbering the patents l. z has no elect In law.
These prayed for cannot be used by different
individuals without interference case has boon stated
when an provement IL made on TNient which
be- used without OF he prior The
not snilsr all three patents equal In rghtas to
ldae Besides the law docs not plate giving 10
those nder for correction the rights of
apply Improvements. Could IL be supposed
under reissue of old patent with distinct paris Claimed
tons--apd thsss, barely %
teerns aoths would be going very say the least
A. prs-ra hrve delayed my decision on originality
OF the Inventions CLAIMED ude the oh pascn, bu. III do
| il II u tinsi decision is desired
wish not to embauass the paten,ees in obtaining the