The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-05-15

| from that The patent Of 1874 does not describe
the same thing as that Of 1919 Why! II is be-
the invention. and the law authorizes this ressuing
| Of patent, precisely that il may furnish another
and better description Of the invention. If one
can hold up these two papers, and say 1874! says
this, and lS1S says that, what of that II is be-
cause lsfs does not express what 1919 docs express
and that l849 has been obliged to talk, and to
speak, and to show the real character and extent Of
the inventions that is the very object Of tho pro.
vision. II was to state with more accuracy and
correctness of description, what 1874 has not stated
with accuracy and correctness OF description. So
that your honors see, it all back to this. Ia
that Of 1919 true description Of the invention! If
il be, there is an end to the inquiry.
have spoken of the description; now speak Of
the specification or claim. It is alleged that tho
patent Of 1874 does not specify claim such in
vention rs lS49 claims. This only proves and alit
does prove is, that the patentee had right to sur
render and take out a patent with new specifca-
tion and new claim in lS49, provided that speoif-
cation that claim, thus contained in the issued
patent Of lSl9 corresponds with the original inven-
ton think we might rest here-as on a clear yri-
ma fac,e case, met by no opposing evidence what
ever. Now. is it proved by anybody? Or has any
that the rcssued patent Of 1919 does not truly de-
scribe the invention !? / know what my learned
friend has said about steam heat, and l will offer q
few observations by way of reply to this suggestion
can find upon the record, that there is no
evidence to rebut tho strong presumptve and prima
focie proof deducible from the issue Of the patent
itself under judicial authority the Commissioner
to show that the patent of S49 does not conform to
the invention. But we may well go further, and we
may prove, and can prove; and think, with SUBJ
mission to the court we have proved, by the cores
| pondence between the plaintiff and Dr. Jones, his
agent, that he directed his agent to insert in his
original patent the claim for sulphur and heat, just
as that specification or claim stands in the amended
or re-issued patent, and that the failure to insert
| that specification and that claim in tho original
4 ObViOuslV
! qucnces of inadvertance mistake.
| Now, this is an important point, provided that
there were any evidence to couneract the presump-
tive 2rnd fdcie evidence of the patent itself.
This is point to be considered The counsel whom
| now follow saw the force of this a gentleman of
his professional capacity could not fail to see what
must be the result of proof now given, tending to
show that the invention described by the inven-
tor at the time, was in exact conformity to the
claim and specification in the re.ssued patent, and
that its omission in the patent of 1914 was occa-
stoned by inadvertence mistakes because he saw
that that would bring the claim for the reissued
patent, precisely within the words Of the law There
Is on this record correspondence, back as early as
sometime in 1889, between the plaintiff in this case
and his agent Dr. Jones, of Washington and there
is letter from the plaintiff to DR.. Jones, the force
Of which is exceedingly great if it be lawful paper
in the cause. 1t is dated Springfield, December Is,
1885,
spaIscriELD, Dec 49, 1913.
DocToR Taos. p JONES
DEAR sir lift is not too late will you please add to
heating India rubber whether manufactured
not in oven or close room with sulphur or sui
rburous gas
prefer this to be included in the patent = y
i'''' -'e dRHARIHs GOODYEAR.
There was a previous letter addressed on the 2}d
December, 1889, by Charles Goodyear, to DR..
Thos T.. Jones
| will read from it
The improvements that I wish to secure here
and abroad oliowssnd you will be able to tell
me how far may embrace the different claims under
one head
~ now use sulphur my invention opposed by all
concerned after which 800 heat, also my owformery
tcaspoonfui 10 thelb
On B-The within the most essential points unless
the great heat is applied unless the goods exposed
for two days to clear and unless they have the
very large proportion Of sulphur they are comparatively
of value these secrets not yet known. except to
my friends but there il time to be lost--will
write again in day or two
CHARLES GOODYEAR.
Where, then, are these letters. written in 1889 and
1913, genuine letters, and actually written they
purport to have been at the time between the par
ties or are they forgeres and spurious and falsely
foisted into this court. in order to qualify Good
years original invention. as to obtain reissue
of the patent in lSf9 conformaby not to that which
was his original invention, but to something which
he wished to make that original invention appear to
be, by the merton Of false papers
Now commentaries made by my learned OPP
ponents upon the handwriting in which these letters
appear. and the signature purportng to be the sig
nature of Mr. Goodyear attached thereto. They
say the letters ale not proved: the handwriting Is
not proved that there are suspicious about 1t and
until they proved as muniments of his title, and
matters considered when his invention first
patented, they DO not OF course produce the effect
expected from them, or any effect whatever
If they are false papers. they are good for nothing,
Of course. Now, how are they proved! Why, in the
common way Mr.. Brown, professional gentleman
Of standing, who is acquainted with the handwrit-
ing of both Charles Goodyear and Thomas p. Jones,
has corresponded with both Of them, and knows
their handwriting. He says that although this let
ter OF Mr.. Goodyear does not appear to be in his
common or ordinary handwriting, yet he believes it
is in his own handwriting. ! don't know that any
| man would have the hardihood to swear that par
ticuar letter was absolutely in the handwriting Of
any man.
The proposition On the part Of our learned oppo-
nents. is that sometime afterwards, perhaps at
| about the time when he was applying for the
issued patent, in order to make his original inven-
| tion appear TO be broader than it was in truth,
| Goodyear set about to perpetrate q forgery and
| crime, and he found way some how or other, to
get on the records false and forged letter. Well,
10 do that, he has letter prepared which he means
shall be considered as in his own handwriting. and
yet he gets somebody else to forge 1t That Il Il
very ingenious way FOR a 70 cut his own throat.
| He means that this letter, when produced, shall
appear to have been written by himself, at the time
when It purrorts TO have been written and yet he
gets somebody else, who writes different hand, to
write il for him.
| leave that. But is this necessary, Is it neces-
sary to prove as against Mr. Day, the legality Of the
issue Of this amended patent
| How do we stand in that How does it stand
upon his own conduct How does it stand upon
his own acts In the first place he covenanted that
Mr.. Goodyear might obtain re-issued patent in
such manner and form as he saw fit.
But, in these covenants Of October and November,
1916. the defendant does stipuate that Goodyear
may, whenever he proper surrender this sulphur
patent of 1889, and the vucanzing patent of 1871,
and take them out anew. What does he say
to them: for il would certainly to conclude the
defence against urging anything in opposition to the
validity Of this re-issued patent.
lie meets it by saying that he never heard that
Goodyear claimed as his invention the application
Of heat to the curing of rubber but only to his
particular compound; that il was not in his imagi
nation when he signed these covenants. or when he
agreed that patent might be issued. that
Goodyear claimed anything but the application Of
heat to the curing Of his compound, called the tri-
\ Pie compound :
Now, if by that he means TO say that he never
understood that Goodyear claimed to cure rubber