The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-11

eosS oPosocDoo, tnen, II genuine, and eohssrueo
- the opposite eounsG Slains that 1t cught 70 be,
clearly proves that the alleged omission in the spe-
ciocs Hon was not through error, not through aec-
dent, lot through inadvsrtepce, not Abrough mis-
take, but through delbeYa Intentional purposed
omission il 1t not 500 Gan il be otherwise Why
was not the present claim then inserted in tho
patent. when his attention was expressly drawn
70 IL! why did not Goodyear write inme-
clsteiy back to DR. Jones describing his add
tiona invention ! The only conclusion is, thai he
had nothing more to describe, or did not choose to
describe IT submt 10 the Court, that no matter how
iattudinasian may be the views Of some in regard
TO the extent to which the thirteenth section Of the
act Of 1886 may 30, for the purpose Of enabling par
teDtees TO correct their errors and insdverenees it
would be doing violence to language, and DO in tho
teeth OF this statute, to say that . patentee who
proves a. part Of his own case, that at the time
when be took cut his original patent, he was per-
fectly aware that something that he claimed was not
put into the specification when he shows that it
was the subject Of correspondence; that he called
accepted and eDioyed his patent without murmur or
complaint for years that in lS49, after having Of.
rmed his patent TO be in all things right, after he
has brought actions upon it, and manufactured
goods under it, and monop0Gzed tho market for i've
years and halt, be may come forward and claim
70 issue on the ground that the omission was through
nadvertancs, mistake, or error. Such practice ought
not to be tolerated.
OF error or mistake, mean some, hing It is argued,
however, that the mere fact OF the issue by the
commissioner of the new patent, raises q priu1a
tac1e presumption that there was mistake
IN the original am willing to concede the priDci-
pie. that pr,a facie the action of the patent Office
in granting issue must be deemed to have been
regular, and within the authority Of the Commits
sioner Of Patents But still insist if the patentees
place before the Court evidence which rebuts the
idea Of On accidental omission, and shows that in
point Of fact tho patentee knew Of the alleged os
sion a. the time, and that it left out matter
OF preference, or choice, or neglect when these
iaef han a nf nf fh0ri An in
the con missioner il made out.
The circumstance that Goodyear wilfully omitted
to alter his original specification, must necessarily
have been suppressed and kept back from the Com
missioner of Patents because if it had been placed
before him, it would have been just ground, acoor-
ding to that thirteenth section for the refusal OF the
excluded grant. This Court can legitimatey say,
that If the missioner had had that knowiedge as
the time, he would noe have granted 70 issue Of
the patent The suppression Of the patentee of
the facts within his knowledge, whom these facts
atterwaTds come TO light, ought 70 deprive him Of
the right Of enforcing grant which on ght never to
have been made.
One word more before leave this letter tits al
legged that this gentleman claimed by this letter in
ls43, an invention as broad az the patent OF lSi9
But this language is g claim as my Improvement,
the heating Of India rubber, in close room,
combined with ulphur or its gases" That falls
far short Of any discovery for the application Of
tended no further than the curing OF rubber in
close vessel by means of atmospheric heat; so if
that letter is to be treated as geLuins it pro yes,
beyond all doubt, not only that the alleged omis-
sion in the pal emit of 1874, not accidental, but
that the real discovery did not 60 beyond that de-
scribed in the specification Of 1914.
l contend further, that this re-ssued patent is
also void upon its face, because it claims The ap.
rGcation OF heat generally to rubber or to rubber
mixed with sulphur, or in the presence Of sulphur,
or in the presence Of any gas OF sulphur. II
to me that IL Is patent not for any particular pro-
cess or mode of applying heat to any compound;
htA tha AF oil IL ~
beat in all kinds Of ways, TO rubber, where there
is any connections no matter what il may be with,
sulphur or its gases, If tho proposition be true,
that party can take out patent for heat general
~ when applied to rubber IN combination, IN any
degree, or under any condition circumstances
whatever, then admit that this patent may not
be assailaoe upon this ground; but can it be that
alleged discovery Of the effs,t OF heat without
describing any mode Of applying it, any process
or proportions, can make n valid pateot! IL such
patent were put into the hands Of mechanic Of
ordinary skill in that branch, giving other di-
rections than generally TO apply to rubber or 70
,nbber and sulphur, could he perform the process!
Such patent ls clearly void TO assert the can
trary would be to Insist that the mere abstract dis
covery o. heat OF any k'n6, in any form, whether
atmos heric or vapos, applied to rubber in the pre-
sorce OF sulphur, 10 matter in what proportions or
degoes, o. under what conditions WITHOUT being 70
dueed TO any more practical shape or form, would
constitute good and valid pntent.
Spk out If this new patent every thing that
pertains 10 the triple compound, and there is still
left claim for tho application Of heat to rub
Der az described, without specifying any mode or
process. or giging any directions. This general
claim. insist, is utterly void But il your hopors
please, have another proposition 10 submit upon
th's hTnch OF The ease This patent not only pre-
scribes no mode by which sulphur and rubber,
rubber and tie gas Of sui phur can DO vucarized;
bsS ubDlit that in point IF fact. without the addi
ton Of lead, they cannot be cured. and have
been cured 90 as to produce vendible commodity.
! call upon the learned counsel the other side
1nYtia pF
which tends TO show that Gny person ever did vul-
canize rubber combined with the gas Of sui
phur. There ia not only no evidence that
it can be vulcani7ed when thus united but
on the contrary, the witnesses show tina. it cannot
be yulcanzed by the admixture of sulphu- itself
into the rubber in any proportions that would make
rorcbantable fabric. IL is possible that large
and extraordinary proportion of sulphur combined
with rubber night be vulcsnized so as to produce
the appearance of vendble article; but it would
be utterly valueless and unfit for use Upon this
point refer to the evidence Of David McCurdy, aud
will read but very short passage, observing that
he is a witness in the employ of the New Jersey
factory, conducted by Hutchinson s. Runyon. sub
stantialy plaintiffs in this case. (vol 2 Defend
ants Printing. p l01, % to 62) The part Of the
dS. Whose patent patents had you and the Newark
India Rubber Company been working under, ii any
proSSo your trial experiment of the 10
cure4nbber goods , A Gocdyesr's patent Of 1871 50
Low were the goods OF II. H. and those Of N l. H. o.
.'amIed IN reference to spy patent, II stamped at all
was all the stamp ever feen on their manufacture.
have stamps other goods. 60 Have you expert
ment with what articles compounded to make
rubber goods would cure IN heated atmosphere; and
II yea. state the result Of experiments made before
the ime You tried the curing ia steam as You have
Ssieo! A. Yes have tricd great many experiments.
Before that have found thing tnat would
in heated atmosphere but lead lharge sulphur and
rubber in oornbit ation
81. How Is 1t in curing in steam A. We can make
very good article Of sulphur and rubber, by curing in
steam or uniting sulphur and rubber magneeia and Temp
give nness and body The Iuboer without the Of
lead providing you use steam 10 cure it in.
The counsel then read from evidence of Mr..
Jackson (vol Defendants Printing, p 1872 one
Of the opposite witnesses:-
10 yen consider lead in combination with rubber
ceaiy 70 lie successful manufecture OF India Rubber
when cur II o l9ltod atmos pberc! A. ] DO
hbour bat time was t fret discovered EaoWn in the
Jnod Stnies that rubber and sui ptur without Jho adj
Citon Of lead. would yUlcnpize A. / conld not an
that u was patented thst way ia Europe in 1913.
n IL. In / y D-ln