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

and in 1888 the Of Shaw Cooper, Peters 292,
came up, and the docine reiterated. In this
case there bad been abroad, and this court SAID i
the Invention know ed by the pabic before II
was patented, The patent is void" Judge Washington
had held the in four, and Judge Story in five
Judge Badws had held -'The invention must be new
10 all the world" From 1904 1888 the decisions had
been uniformly the same The question now Is, did the
statute OF 1886 change the law Ne say II did not The
sixth section Of the ac e. 1886 provides that person
who has made an invention VIII ch was "not known OF
Used by others before bis Invention apply Tor pale
making oath THAT he does verify believe that he is
HE original and first inventor" This is the old law,
aud actually followed IN procuring the patents now
andes consideration The seventh provides that u on
.'shal not appear 10 the commissioner lhat
ese same has been invented discovered by any othel
person Ibis country prior 10 The alleged discovery bereoi
by the applicant il he shall deem II sufficiently useu ana
important, shall be his duty TO issue paent mere
ior" The section Then provides, II ION such exaihna-
lion shall appear The Commissioned That Inc appii-
the original and frsf inventor ibeieo', OF
that any part OF that which - Claimed as new mas peeh
or discovered in this or foreign country, as
then he is not to issue ono, and certain pro-
ceediHgs are 10 he had before board The last clause
10 this section being clear and express must control the
hrst. il there is a conflict between them This last
clause and the provision in the sllh secion are per-
tectly harmonious The fifteenth secnoh- provides. u
the pa,entee not The original and ,st Inventor on
dscoyerer OF The thing pataned substantial part
thereof claimed as news &c Judgment shall be rendered
for descendant with COSTS Morse contends that me pro
viso 10 this last section, which says that patent shall
be held 10 be he believed he was the first inventor
when he applied mobiles and CONTROLS This provision.
he has stated no such case ~ his bill and II
lie had such an issue could not be tired No one
prove what he believed at that moment II would be
inpoic to give construction which would involve such
ain improbable matter his belief The rights OF others
do not depend upon any such inscruiabe facts Under
the old law patent could be deceed TO be void and it
then cancelled. The proviso is applicable 10 such
case but there nothing this act Ter II apply
operate pon The court where clothed with power
declare patent void Tor defects appearing upon
trial for its Infringement lis authority IS confined to CIV
ing the defendants judgment 18th Costs when he proves
1t has 10 aQludcate the pat
enl void, and that it be cancelled TO do anything else
with it. This provso nse Ited in the Senate after
the bill passed the House, the records show and
has nothing whatever 10 act upon and serves purpose
but to confuse this loose nd imperfect law TO be
found in saiule-book, and one which, Tor the bene
fiji OF inventors and the good OF the public requires much
anne ndment have high authority for my conclusions
upon the present point Chancellor Kent, his second
volume OF Commentaries, p. $685. edition of lo4S) says
" II patentee be not the first origna inventor, in
reference 10 all the world, he not entte 10 PATENT
even though he had knowledge OF the previous use
or previous description of the invention III any printed
pab alton, for the law presuMes be may have known
it." In 1884, Judge Story; in Reed IS. Cutter Story X
$780, held Under the patent laws OF the United States
the applicant Tor patent must be the first well the
original nvenlor' lt is sufficient that he is the first in
te' eniite him to patent and no subsequent
inventor has right to deprive him OF the night 10
acts of 1876 and 1887 fully establishes this consruc
ton and indeed this has been the habitual. if not
invariablc, Interpretation of all patent acts from
origin of our government The language OF the act
OF 1896, known used by others, before his or
their discovery thereof has never been supposed 10
vary this construction" "ln Pennock Dialogue, (2
Pet }, the Supreme Court expressly held that The
OF the patent act then in force (and on this point the
law has undergone no aeraton) gives tue right TO the
true and first inventor and To hun only ii known and
used by others before his discovery, he the first,
though he be true inventor and that is The 10
which the clause looks" Judge Woodbury. in 1916. in
Allen - Blunt W. and M l2l, referring TO the supe
nor sE OF the first inventor SAID There is doubt
il mus prevail, matter of historical and chronology
cal ruth. IL in truth the first invention" Ii the law is
Insisted by Morse his oath 10 obtain his patents should
have been that he The first inventor this country
and his patent should have stated The facts but both
oath and patent, In express words, conform 10 my
struc,io His bill should have conformed TO his
But his application, his oath, and his PATENT the forms
OF the Patent Oce the words OF tne statute, and The adj
Indications as lar AS reported with me and good
common sense and sound policy in harmony with
them all 1T Norses position correct, then II SeinheI
should here and use his invention which per-
feced and actual before Morse perfected his he
would be subject suit for using hat his genius and
learning produced and gave 10 the world Wheasione
would be liable Tor using MS CON oned circuits ~ this
country though actually patented by him IN ls10 six
years before Morses application 10 patent them such
consequence shows the absudy of Morses pretensons
His pdient Is clearly bad.
Ia his fifth clam, Morse patents a system OF signs
These not covered by any provision IN the patent
law. Ii Morse monopohze this Kind OF writing, he
must the law. His prelenson that
combine dots lines, and spaces without violating
his rights cannot be sustained until he that be
vented Them But all know they old, and IT is
proved IN this H. cannot combine these simple
and elements 10 prevent the rest OF man
kind making other combinations 10 meet their wants.
This attempt at monopoly only equalled by his claim
ing the exclusive OF sounds, without even showing
how they be used all For both these causes, this
patent is invalid
fro Bg Continued
~ ENrl.EMt.N Wishing to provide he with