New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-01


insdveinDce or mistake and without fraudulent ntsn-
ton TO mislesd, is also be decided by the Commits
toner These two points have been settled again and
again. and 1t 10 not necessary that should detain the
Court by arguiGg them on this occasion Then there
comes another proposition b. wit, taaf the Com'ns-
fcner Is in ike the sole judge of the question:
whether the r.issued patent is for the invention
as the original atent unless upon the face oil the two
patents the contrary appear and warrant the conclusion
that the Commissioner has exceeded his duty or lu-
thority bel eve that proposition has received the
sanction OF the Supreme Court of the United States but
II Is understood that since the decision tIe Chief JUS
iice Of the Supreme Court has in permitted
this question OF Identity 20 be admitted to jury, upon
the def, DdsDts express denial of it, and the express al
legetin OF fraud There was case in which both par
ties assenteo 10 send the question OF fraud jury, and
that was a case tried in Baltimore Woodworths
PlsIiug Machine.
Judge GREER-I have since tried two cases with the
samcssue the only point being whether the reissued pa
tent for the invention the original patent
Mr.. WEBsTER-That is to say, tue Cnief Justice APP
pears entertain the opinion that this question might
be inquired into, and your honor TO be OF nat
Oplitn you have tried the question by jury If hat
be law, that the Court may look into tnis question of
Il original invention in comparison with the renewed
patent then the question ls not whether he must
90 10 the in V on this point but the question L.
whether there Is evidence before the Court support
the iden tty rather whether the defendant has ds-
proved the identity in opposition 20 the presumption
arising fro the patent itself for no doubt whether in
dis Gaze the decision ofthe Commissioner be final. or
rather be na IL Is Of The very highest degree OF
p,iud fdcie and presumpve evidence, and the burden
lies on the other side to disprove it, And here must
pusrd against VIII 4 is mistake, into which we might
possibly run. The real question is, whether the re-
Issued pat 1T s for the thing orisuay iavenied No
when the defendant undertakes to sustain that burden
be undertakes to prove that this ressued patent IA not
il conformity to- the original invention and he does that
the rst piLcc by showing as he thinks that the pa
teut Of 1914 does de- Ibe the thing that CT
ls49 That is proposition With a0nscguitUr. There
is no inference 10 be drawn from that The patent of
1874 does describe the thing that Of lSi9
WhyS is because the patent Of 1914 aid not properly
describe the invention ard the law authorizes this re-
issuing OF patent precisely that il may furnish another
and better desert tion OF the Invention. If one can
bold up these papers, and say lS4i says this and
le49 gays that what OF that 1t is because 1874 does
lot express what ls49 does express and that Si9 has
been obliged 10 talk and to speak and to show thu real
character ard extent OF the invention that the very
object Of the provision. Ii 10 state with more
curacy and correctness Of description what 1874 had
not stated with accuracy and correctness OF description
so that your Honors it all comes back to this Is
that OF IS49 true description OF the Inventions II 1t
be. there is an end to the inquiry
heve spoken Of the description, speak now of the
Specification or claim 1t is alleged that the patent of
1874 does not specify claim such sn invention as
lS49 claims This only proves ana all 1t does prove IL
that The patentee had right to surrender and take
patent with q specification and a new claim in
ls49 provided that specification or that claim, tu' con-
ined in the Tessued pstent OF 1919 corresponds with
the original invention think we might rest here-as
whatever Nor is it proved by anybodyl Or has any
serious attempts been made to show by evidence that
the ressued patent of ls49 docs not truly describe the
inveniioni ! know what my learned friend has said
about steam heat and viii offer few observations by
WY Of reply to this suggestion OF his presently But
ay far can find upon the record that there IL no
evidence to rebut the strong presunpve and primd
fcie III COf de ducbe from the Issue of the patent se
under the judicial authority of the Commissioner to
show that the patent of ls49 does conf rm the
invention. But We may well go fuItoer, and we may
prove and prove, end think with submission to
the Court have proved, by the correspondence be-
tw cen the plaintiff and Dr. Jones' his agent that he d
ooted bis agent insert in his orr gin patent the
claim for sulphur and heat just as that specification or
claim stands in the amended reissued patent, and
that the failure insert that specification and that claim
in the original patent therefore, most obviously, the
const quence OF inadyertence or mistake
Now that is important point, provided that there
were any evidence to couIteract the presumplye or
p,na acie evidence of the patent itself This is point
10 be considered. The counsel whom now follow Jaw
the force OF this gentleman OF his professional ca.
pscy could not fail to see what must be the result OF
proof given tending TO show that the invention as
cribed by the inventor at the time was in exact con-
fol nifty to the claim and specification in the ressued
patent and that its omission in the patent OF 1874 was
occasioned by nadvertence or mistake because he
that that would bring the claim for the rcsued patent
precisely within the words of the law Now, there Is on
this record correspondence back early some time
i'm 1899 between the plaintiff in this and his agent
Dr. Jones' Washington and there is letter from the
plaintiff to Dr. Jones' the force OF which is exceedingly
great, if be lawful paper in the cause
My learned friend felt acted az II he were bound 10
acknowledge its force, if were lawful paper at ALL
1t is dated Springfield, Dec. IL, 1913:
sPRINGrIEID, Dec. 1s. 8t3.
please add to the specification follows: That claim my
improvement heating India Rubber whether manufactured
gas Iprefer this to be included in the patent I"
G. Yours respectfully CHARLES GOODYEAR
And here the reply of Dr. Jones TO that letter. in mis-
own hand writing, dated Dec. % 1913:
WASHINGTON, Dec. %, 1915.
CHAs GOODYEAR, Eso.Dear Sir: have your letter of
India Rubber whether manufactured not in or
close room with sulphur sulphurous gas" This cannot
tut the claim without first describing 1t IN the specica-
ton which not done so far manufactured gum Is con-
ceIDed and without explanation from you cannot
understand it by manufactured lLdia Rubber should
he heated? And if So WHY Have the goodness to furnish
with all the particulars that may insert the thing u
Yonys. very respectfully THos P. JONES.
There previous letter addressed on the 23t De-
cember $780, by Charles Goodyear to Dr. Th9s p Jones
/ will read from 1t
Tle improvements that now wish TO secure, here and
abroad are as follows and you will be able 10 tell me how
faI may embrace the different claims under one head"
sull hur own invention, opposed BY all con-
cened after which 500 heat also my own-tormery tea
spoonful TO the lb.'
the great lie applied unless the goods exposed for
days clear sum- and unless they have the very large
proportion of sulphur they are comparatively o. no value
there ia now 10 time to be lost VIII write again in day or
two ~ am truly yours &c. CHARLES GOODYEAR"
Twill ask one Of my associates to read the claim in
the patent of le49.
Mr. Dickerson read the claim, as follows:
"Nhat claim my invention, and desire 70 secure oy
Letters Patent curing Of Caoutchouc India Rubber
by eubiectips to the action of high degree of artificial
heat substantially herein described, and for the purposes
"And also claim the preparing and curing the compound
Of India Rubber sulphur ard carbonate other SALT
of lead by tectng the same to the action OF arti
cia heat. substantially as herein described"
have heard said that this correspondence in 1889
was writtea after the time in which il is proved the In
vcntion was made.
The elementary principle of the invention was dis
covered in 1885, and this letter OF 1889 ust as closely as
the letter le44 refers TO the invention and seems
to state his agent at Washington what nc wished to be
secured at the time he takes out his patent
Well then these letters, written in 1889 and 1913
genuine letters and actually written as they Pupor 10
have BEEN the time, between the parties are they
forgeies and spurious, and falsely foised into this
Court, in order TO qualify Goodyear original INVENTION
20 as TO Obtain reissue of the patent in s4s conform
Al ~ nvap