New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-06
Nrw.voRK DAILY TRIBUNE, THURSDAY FEBRUARY 6, 1851

net ,bpk n would be light to permit one pary 70 lnspses
sn5 reply 20 the arguments Of The otnef' "ihou' Ao
Irov edge consent Of Inc latter -, ., .,.,o,,. On
Sixb Yeu ssk to state the law, rules OF ~
1l The prAc ice Of the Board OF Extension va % A1
nhel ~, 49, ,onrbiov the matters above considered -
bsssd The law may be found IN the lsn seru5 ~
nAeu tiv isss That prescribes The mode OF MAKING
sTrlcsuon tue notice 70 the public Interested saseis
IN IL extension and the nature OF the testimony - . -,
10 ~ 5,,orer An The rules Of practice regulating me
80 I'd manner ofconducting the matter. were desl
- - In cor formty wiki the spirit and intention o .nT
TIE BOARD Of Extension adopted cera ~ es reg s.'
- ,7s ~ annlvng FOR extensions, ard me manner "
,ocseStnr aerward. far AZ II could be regi au ~
f1prsss ard precise rules They were also govern 49,,
he reason srd justice Of me case They Sonsoeo1 as
- "a h Al and ecu table powers, ani Their acl "a
-verred tv desire 90 do justice 10 me paf-s anu
pubc which also bad rights and Interests to De reg N''"
vSen he law devoved the duty OF extending Fale1s
sorv On he Commissioner adopted and acted u0n .l
gene1s practice well as The express rules OF us oo
Of Exierson. 49,. s-.. ,,,, .,o,,, and ,,.,,,
d ,-is.erd practce Of the Board of Extension.
seventh You inquire n he practice Is different IN Cases
Of interfering appcsuons 20, a, ,bs nr.,rcs wa,
nor dsrent In case OF interfering, cousi teed ihaI oo
rsrtes had right 10 copies OF 90 oen ., le ~ orsr
srecfrsf'ors Of each olher. as came IN conct pa
Ia ,y might be enabled 10 apply their testimony and
Edduce their arguments to he particular point OF iu'ee
en s s5 M sy Of hearing neither party va. permit,
teo TO Tut in sdoinons matter on SPY so enop ~ ~
si col ,ent In writing. filed with the other papers IA s
80. I, yrould have been against an express RUE OF me
Oce presrrlbed ~ the commissioner IN ~.
he law and which is IN The iOAowlng words w -
~, scs 5ecsrsions proofs, and evidence, shall be
Sled in he Pa en- Ofce by the parties respectively SeDls
- re rri,ions of the 18th section Of the Act %
March 3d. 1881 the Commissioner himself cannot WIN pro-
prey have answered all the points touched in your
heterogeneous end only regret that my me viii not per-
nit 10 do il more ea3ol o Ssdisr, ss,vsrt
AZ" 'e'' EDMUND BURKE.
REHABILITATION.
From the foregoing facts letters laws, ru'es'
afidavits &c, the following deductions are Ie5"'
/ That the Commissioner of Patents has ON,
cioIlv acted in a partial and unfair manner, and
bas iert himself and his official station to one
Of TWO nsrties contending before hlm IN the mat
ter Of the extension of patent oil great import
ance. -, l. .oc,sad 20 the
marty, opposing the extension copy OF the
petition and grounds for the extension hled oy
the other party, when such copy was asked oil ana
the LEGAL fees for copying rendered to MN ana
vet he volunteered to furnish the party asking
Tor the extension a copy OF the other parry
grounds Of opposition as soon as they snouAu oe
fled at the Patent Office. -,
3. That after the day Of hearing, ne permittea
the counsel of the party asking tor the extension
to go to the files Of the Patent Ohce, examine
the papers and argument of the opposing party,
and write and file a reply to the same WITHOUT
giving any notice to the opposing party oil the IN
lair advantage which had thus been taken OF their
the government of the Patent Office.
1. That the alidavits of Messrs. Gregg and
Howe show that the invention OF machine i1r
spreading and pressing India huooer on Sios 90
substantially the same as that Tor whlch T. ~
Cbaffee obtained a patent in the year 1880, was IN
existence and in use in the years 1929 and le12'
and that therefore NJ. Chatfee had no Just ana eA'
elusive right TO said invention.
). That Chahee sold his Invention IN adV shce 10
the Roxbury India Rubber Company, before he
A. h, ia no n x.
penditures in the matter, certainly not more than
fifty dollars-and that he acknowledges under
oath, that the said Company paid him eight thou
sand dollars for his alleged invention.
6. That even if the invention had been Cnai
fees own, he had no right, under the laws and
rules governing the Patent Office In the matter,
to ali extension of his patent
7. That Chaiiee did not ask for the exten sion OF
his patent for has OCB benefit but Tor the dement, oil
Charles Goodyear, to whom said patent was as
signed the 2sth of July, 1874, after having been
four times previously assigned to otner parties
and persons
g. That the Commissioner had not, at the time
he granted an extension OF Chaffees Patent-viz
3Oth August-read or examined any part OF the
many hundred pages OF testimony, atfidavlts aud
arguments on file at the Patent Office against
said patents extension.
o That the Commissioner in the matter follow.
ed neither the laws, rules, the practice of the
Patent Office and
10. That an the law expressly disallows an ex-
tension of patent, except to remunerate the IN
ventor for bis time and expense, and as the IN
ventor in this case asked for an extension for the
benefit of Others, and not for himself the extern
sion of Chafiee patent was wrongful act IN ~
self and the conduct of the Commissioner Of Pa
tents. throughout the whole proceeding OF the
matter, was totally uDiustihable
All Of which is respectfully submitted ,,,
TAPPAN, McBURNEY CHEGNER,
AGENTS for me soston Betting Company, Boston, Mass.
HORACE Ii. DAY, New.YOrk
HUDSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
New-Jersey.
Successor 10 the American GuIIs Percha Company
BY 5. 4. ARMsToNG, President
Office 1871 Broadway, NY
j. O JACKSON, Salem Mass.
HENRY G.. TYkR, New Brunswick, N. J,