The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-12-06

cord that the telegraph has been produced by the agency
OF numerous individuals, and that Mosses share IN II rs
not greater than Sleinheips or Henry's II equal to
either, II should satisfy the ambition OF even an ambl-
ilous man. But Morse's claims almost unb0unded,
and centre 10 the desire OF rich harvest from hs pat
ens, Although he did no, first discover the motive power
OF electr0magnetsm he claims ,s exclusive when
applied TO make slegraphc record or to produce sounds
that is, he claims all possible modes, when he only ia
vented mode Of applying it, II the law 10 ~ he
claims It to be, II invent mode unknown 10 him, and
Infinitely better than HIS and the power OF electro
magnetism. which he did not discover, he use my
Invention al his pleasure and and sgainst
me i use my own invention. This would be palpa-
bic infringement OF The constitution, which authorizes
laws granting the exclusive BY an inventor OF his
own, and not OF another mans invention. To allow
hiin to against for using my own invention
would be outrage upon the law. upon common
and upon justice itself II will require more than the
power and authority of own pure and veneraed lu-
dietary to secure the acquescence OF the American peo-
pie IN such extraordinary conclusion. claim TO the
exclusive use OF air fire, water and stsnn TO produce
particular result, would have the same foundation.
Morses pa,esi, nrst issued in 1910. only claimed
certain mode OF applying the power OF galvanism, or
elecro-magneiism, and did not claim s exclusive use.
In the second reissue Of this patent few months after
his agents and friends had seen permanent magnetism
used in the VRiey instrument be allowed 10 claim
the exclusive use Of "ae motlrs ponsr 0 msgmei'sm."
Norses instrument can only be worked BY eectro-mag-
netism. The Columbian is operated by the employment
of Two permanent magnets as the motive power. EIec'
tro-magnesm not used in It motive power at all.
but simply change the polarity OF iron bar so az 10
lease subject TO the power OF the permanent magnets
These are not as much affected by atmospheric electric
ty The eecro-magnet. The testimony shows the in
sruments TO be substantially different and not wit
that the Columbian is an infringement, un-
less be did under the belief that 10 use magnetism as
motive power violation Of MoIse's patent This
either expressly stated or inferabe from the testimony
OF Morses witnesses Those called by ORelly clearly
show that the TWO Inventions are not alike. we conh
deny that there has been no Infringement, be.
The inventions unlike in form and structure, and
in The power use and in the mode OF lis application and
thai ORielly has used nothing that Morse ~ iact IN
vented Before this court can hold that URIeliy IN
tInged, il determine that Morse entitled TO- the
exclusive use OF permaneni as well as electro nagne'
tsm, although differently produced aud applied he mas
shown no mode OF using y, and It cannot DC used oy
any machinery or combination invented by him. II wil
require more inventive genius thar Morse has ever man
ifesed 10 produce substantial for determining
tba. these inventions are substantially the same.
now proceed 10 other questions a
First Morses patent OF S40 is yoid because IT runs
fourteen years from the date OF its issue, instead OF That
length of time from the date OF his patent, granted IN
France in 1888, for the same invention
The seventh section OF the ac OF 1896 prohibits the
issue oil patent where one has been previously granted
for the same thing. The eighth section modihes this IN
favor of the inventor within six months alter OBJ
tanning letters abroad, he files his specifications and
drawings here The sixth section OF the act Of 1889
suspends much OF the seventh section OF the act OF
1886 relates TO patents obtained abroad, win the
proviso, that oil every such patent shall De
miici 10 the OF fourteen years IRON the date or
publication of such foreign letters patent" The object
OF this section 10 limit patents 10 fourteen years
from the time the inventor first patents the invention,
either here or abroad Under The act OF 1885, patent
could run only fourteen years from the time OF patent
ing here which must have been within six months from
the Date of the foreign patent. The public would then
have had The right 10 the invention at the expiration
OF years aud six months from the date oi the
foreign patent Under the construction claimed by
NOISE he would be entitled to fourteen years here,
though he had had il fourteen abroad and had become
public property there. This would place US fourteen years
behind foreign nations in the ught TO use patent inven
ton Morse claims lha, the act OF 1899 dOes not reach
his case because he had applied for patent before
passed We deny that his application was valid
one within the meaning OF the law, until be perfected
,,t q -,r,pp rprf and not cnn
BILE law, a remained unacied upon at hs written re-
quest, and therefore no legal application But II
was. the act makesno exceponsin favor sucn eass
or any other His much within The mischief
intended 10 be corrected any case and the remedy
apply. For this say this patent is invalid
Second In CONSUMING patents, and in deciding what
the in enons are that embraced in the patent, the
summing conclusive, and nothing is patented which
is no, expressly claimed
This doctrine is settled in England In Rex Us Cut
Ter, Starkie r 35i Bowl Us Moore, Marsh I'll,
this rule laid down. The elementary authors are TO
the same effect. Judge Story, in Moody vs. , fiske,
Mason lI2-liS, lays down the same rule. 10 Wysh
u.s. S.one, Story r. p. 2s5, he says ain order to as
certain the construction OF the speclhcaon In THIS
respect, must look TO the summing up OF the invsn-
on aud the claim therefor asserted in the specialization
for is the duty OF the patenee 10 sum up hrs invenuoa
in clear and Discriminate terms Thus was the doctrine
maintained in Moody Fiske, Mason i2, and see
no reason 10 doubt or depart IRON it, IN Hovey e.
Bemis, Woodbury. and Minot IT. this doctrine Is iuly
confirmed The sixth section OF the act OF 1896 provides
"And he shall particularly specify and point out me part
improvement, combination, which he claims as his own
invention or discovery This being statutory require
meni, Morse bound by his under IT, Settling this
position will enable hereafter TO show what M orse
has legally included in his several patents.
Thpd Whatever is described IN Morse's patents and
no, claimed in the summing up, whether invented by him
or not is abandoned dedicated TO the public, and can
not be Afterwards claimed part of his patent In the
reissue, or otherwise.
This proposition IL in part the same as1he last; out ~
also declares the eaec consequences, oil describing
what is not claimed The object of the statute. in re-
curing the pa,eniee 10 specify and point out what he
claims to protect the paentee against the hazard OF
being msu ndersood bls invention, and also TO ena
BILE the public TO ascertain what could be lawfully used,
and wha, was prohibited The printed brief shows The
numerous changes that Morses PATENTS have undergone.
and the things described in the first issues and not
claimed but are Afterwards included. The alphabet
specimen 1t claimed IN the last, but not IN the hs'!
patent Also the exclusive use OF eectro-magneuam ana
magnetism Ii is as much described in 1910 az IN ne
reissue OF 1913, but is not claimed IN the iofmel 90
OF numerous things which only be seen ana unoei
stood by closely scrunizng and comparing 'he ofk"ai
patents with the reissues
Morse insists upon the right 10 claim al tna' nc ae
scubed, but omitted in the summing up OF ine osfns
patent We say that be is concluded by hs acs ana nst
his intentions IN relation TO these matters ABOUT Wncn
we can know nothing have no bearing upon the cAss
The public can b acts and daw their inserencss,
and ought not to be preudced by his oundess iotea-
tons, or change of purpose. In baln D. agar,
a paten, OF a machine, or part OF machine, 70 his
snaccompaned by notice that he has rights
in az inventor that he desires 10 secure title 70
a. paenlee, !. is a dedication of il TO the public"
Neither Of these sections authorizes Z change IN tho
character OF the claim, the subs,tuton OF different pat
enabe subject The defect 10 be remedied w. elmer
asuthciency OF description, OF an error IN CLAIMING