New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-10-09

80, sempcssoD. he sLs.ers "itvts not n'.,
s. ~ ms skost NE goods 1hsyt tsvaJsinieoeeo
.~ss.iy cssrsd me good CHARGE 70 ose e enas,
s.~vps The eomposton heipg better asn sny ssa ~.
sn on sssa wss In bcpes 70 te tessttted " ~ ece -
A., .sss 4 Opportunity 'hs" AnS 'N''"''" -
tSts testimony bs considered upon TIE yIo's.s 800.
SnS as VIA Rsbbsr It incredible fsf ,e.e-
~ ,.ssoss In the fra place. It cannot oe oee. 80
ss .,ss %s ssg sVsI Sssas used y toe
a.. Of tie ferept src Eeesss. 70 pToc9s
sssan have dcS,a :. n ss and the dee. ofheat
49, s,y 10 prossce he dssIed result And III eqosy
ass DEL not AVE .ysec himself CT toe benefit Oithst
%srcveent euring the twelve or fourteen year. ne
vss engaged he tesspt rs,ssr 80,
ts improve The msnufsctore Of rubber ,,, -
Bot thEs besTeers Be taken :. tsoelt zoe no o
.ssns psnors about that time were experinears upoa
Tsbber stryrs do away wit the objections sno GIN
nss in sxperim entne arA srped different degrees o.
heat bot II matters mn how res they msJ rave IN
5sss syss ass III es that s res T.
ksowD By chemical change In the rnsteiia reoosIns
nsernbs 70 the operation q beat and cold am 20 OH''
Row, does not appear from tns testimony o. Co
hat he dd produce 7ncsn1ed beer "a 20 -
s%,enment was 70 render the rubber n'sosbe TO he e.;
Of lest ana cola HIS description oftbe hear 20 usssS
sopotir,ou vas EXPIRED 10 vsg1e and uncertain. nn,
sss~ ~ oro z6co 10 255; and when IL 10 eonnteied
that tie experiment made IN bis heepine
.sto from IL 10 "a fact square, in cylinder plsceo 20 "
49, ~ .,,s soye bestrd By wood and continued for
sour. II 4 not ssrp,ng that lin the ssepce OF
Ssrl be shoad have msde hsh and mistaken estimate o.
a. Of b,,f Fog IL IL quite manifest that he hsd
bept The ttsye bested 20 the highest degree est.Dso
nave y, h. Seon the Iabbsendeng
Il nsss able the effect. Of heat snd cold IL PiopSI,
reaAIh that In tie further part Of INC testimony &
"A ,tsN IN ..ntc
Baltimore 10 he never states the dess 0, e.t
20 which the compound wa, expo'so 400 lne AZ re
Leoad shsstack who ssyer.y swear thn; tnsy %
ssed thisimprovement under the due9u9o o. ne ~ h, 90
nm-Eose Of them stated that high degree OF hed' VIZ
sstd On the contrary Earle swear ss to the oesee o.
Aeet-tbst he usd moderate degree OF hes ns. snc
ssn pretty warm quite 1" aud beng asked TOT wha'
psrpcse tho heat used he answers, for Drying the
conpositon." 49,, ~, ,.s
gpds Rpbbsr previous the pstent Of the eonpaoan
preyious TO the 18th day o. June ISh roI 10 ne
subs c,, the Patent OF 1893 must be con-
dseS bearing the date with the psten which ives
In Ave. To this claim il sufficient to remark that bis
ynesujhps process ssrried in small room where
she hats to be vucspled hung up and the room neat
and that he w.P. r.. no.. s5S
ions tie would stsy in the he answers hoaios
bon 1910 IS minutes had TO be very expea9us eoou'
Say business thse. II very hot scd required 10 keep
are bestin" When consider that water boils o. sten-
perstue of 22 degrees it 10 quite manifest that ms also
was more drjnr and not vuicsnizns process The oe.
nesnt further insists that Goodyear. the complainant dd
invent the yalcsnne process but that the KNOWLEDGE
thereof communicated to him by others VINO invented
IT. sad he John r. Nash, and William Beers a. The
tvo persons who made the invention and commucst 10
90 m and Of course that Mash and Beers or one OF the
Upon examining the testimony, appears that these two
men, WITH others were 10 the empoypent ancsI pay D,
~ their experiments they might and probably d'o ava IN
But by no means follows that Goodyear under whose
erection these improvement were made should be de-
ala insists and In his
that loi 10 the application Of the complainant FOR his pat
sn and than two yes before such aPpe he used
end had In practical use operation in hs business In the
State Of Jersey the thing invention, or discovery or
every substantial usefA and material part thereof when
claimed BY said Goodyear in bis Letters Pstent OF 1897
That 10 say, he sweaIs thst he made vucanizsd RUBBER
ases,iy ssJsns Is 1872 .-,.-
asfendsn but ID II quite manifest from the letter vi the
assBdspt himself explained and confirmed by the test
opy Horace Cutler hGtun alter Deeember, 1912 he, tine
sndsnt aid moi understand process fvusn1ps rub
bar and that he then obtained the information from said
Cutler, who bad 1t fTom the complainant
defendant also charges that both ~ Hayward and Mr..
Hancock Of EnsAnd, made this Improvement prior 70 The
sssmsn both accord to Mr. Goodyear the merit Of this
eenton, and no man or himself Gains the merits OF the n
venton, and denies that Mr. Goodyear 10 entitled TO
thsi mei, except the defendant in this case.
But the defendant raises an ooleci1n, which, II well
founded, renders IL very mmates who was the ongua
inventor For he insists that if the patent OF sis VA
ssood and valid patent yet the Iesued patent OF ~
void for certain reasons which renders 1t necessary 10 e1
The islh sseiics Of Sta ute Of July 1880 provides th,
DIGESTIVE OF Insult sieni description speoi scaon, BY
treason OF the pstsn,ee claiming 10 hs specideston a, his
The Isisst and he Comm,sOnsr 70 issue a new
Patent vita corrected descpt or specification, pro
sSsd The eioT has arisen by iuadver,snce sc;dent or
ntsLe. and without any fraudulent or deceptive ioen
tins section eontemps,es two classes Of cases First
where Ps,snt shall be .npee'ee or maid by reson OF
de sctive or insufficient description or spee hcauon And
seoud where that obe ton arises BY OF the Pa
tsstse cs ans In bis specification Is his own invention
than he bad or shall have light 10 claim a. new
A. 10 The frat oue II manifest that although the de-
spop specification in Patent be clear and distinct
% De scribe Improvement or Invention yet DO not
Scs,rbe the particular invention intended to be described
imperative invalid Ascending to the sense Of the
sie ressas i made the applicant must satisfy the Commits
that the corrected description true description OF
The thas Invented This case had te a. udestion OF the
Con mioner upon the Subject and In the absence OF all
evidence petext ofsud deception am NOT disposed
we had the power, to disturb his adj Indication
asss,Se claim all that be described and claimed in hi'
original but he may not describe OF claim any new
ue particularly to the different kinds OF evidence which
may he used before the Commboner the Court TO
ebsh the fact tina, the applicant Ia. case which 6rny
him within the puIvew Of the at fot the letter OF Good
isssSs.th fact that the description Of part Of his ore
nA ton omitted ia the specification OF 1871 BY
ssdsieney accident or mistakes and therefore, that he
entitled 10 And the only important question
remaining Ia whe ia his resusd patent Of 1912 he hs
described aud claimed improvement different rom and
tended thai the Improvement described in the patent OF
ff9 different result from that desci bed in the pseRt of
1874 Both Of them r making vucanizsd rubber; but
the objection 10 the paisnt Of Sls appears be- that it
enhsoes different and OF heat 10 pro-
tpco the result than the patent Of lS4 In the sreeih
Gallon Of 1874, the applicant says bat prefer
expose them 20 atmosphere o. artificial heat OF the
proper temperature Now, that temperature 81 least
q 6sl 2ls il have been an artificial heat and the
word prefer which he In both specifications appl
cable 70 the particular manner and form Of applying the
heat lmpies that there other that ne might
Nut tnsi he regarded this particular and form
mors Than sneher and the expression in the specification
NAV In
suitable FORM refers 20 the form
Of applying the heat and not to the kind quality OF IN,
heat end the only legitimate aud proper OF that
preston 10 exclude the conclusion that the operator might
be limited the particular form therein specified
and described The objection therefore does not apply TO
this part Of the specification do think applies 70 the
latter part clam made BY the complainant in his spec!6
cation Of 1919 In the specification Of 1874 he desbesthe
h 49,; ,, ~ us . - 800