New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-02-03

WHO certainly should not grunble at the season even
should he realize more than one hundred per cent
IvroErAxr TO I-,ENroRs AND PsrESrEEs.-ln the
case Of ALLEGED interference between conflicting claims
Lones rs Welhoren 70 the invention OF new ana Vau
shie process for the manufacture Of Oxide OF zinc ior
Paint the Commissioner OF Patents recently rendered
decision which reaches very far and viii affect many eases
now in dispute or likely arse hereafter We give place
10 the decision, which is as follows
INTERFERENCE BETWEEN BURROWS, wErHERrLL AND
JOINS
So far cs two Of the present parties are concerned IN
relation 10 each other this has before been consd
cred bv the Once but such then the state OF the eyi
dcnce tia, neither party seemed entitled TO the patent Tor
the subject matter of that Both parties de-
sizing PERMISSION 10 take further testimony and another
comre ttor ptsen ing himself second interference was
declared and another trial given ,.,
As between Burrows ard Weherell some new facts and
circumstances have been broush oat which will aid IN
rIing priority. , d. -
stated that Burrows could be entitled TO patent be
cause he had shown that he had ever been successful
and no course was pointed out in the testimony by which
the causes his want of could be now avoided
The same difficulty exists still After having his attention
called TO sla point and after full opportunity OF supply
ing any d.eo in The eyi So m2 no ssSsn or
successfully making white oxide OF zinc and Burrows has
row letthe country. ,.
.and in the way of Wethere patent on the former occa
sion wos tie TACT sworn by Pepper thai Wetherel had
ohoed Burrows IL he would pay the expenses II the lat
ter would take the proper steps for securing patent ana
Give him Nottere oreeighih part Of the interest there
~ This amounted to an admission of Wetherel that
Burrows had then carried his discoveries very neHy
rot quite to the point OF pacntabiy Had that point
be- attained at ough WetheIoll might have made great
improvement the process used by Burrows the latter
would have been entitled to the principal patent
Du am now of he opinion ihat Burrows had not car
rcd his invention to the point OF patentabity;
In The first place his experiments were founded N error
and although be Who unexpectedly makes dscoyerys
INST az much entitled to patent as though he had been
pujded hy calculations founded tn most unerrag prn.
cps ofciarce yet in cropping in the dark he fails to nnd
Lsf vLi,h he sceks-oven although no should stumble
over this cont yuy TO tie object OF his search Is NOT 70
he REGARDED in the same ht thoug all his movements
had been guided by intelligence and his failure 70 ooain
COMPLETE success attributable to other causes than
In the second place the fact that second opportunity
iyn - Burrows TO supply the defects of his former
testimony without any favorable result adds TO the pre-
SUMPTION against him. while the fact OF hs being IN Ca
forpa or Australia renders il probable that he hai aoan
Tut SnaY h appears from tie testimony of Isaac w
Barrrm hat Wehere had stated het Burrows could not
succeed and that when he was satisfied ana eoanlonea
his undertaking he u, ethoTe would make someihng OUT
of Il similar statement viii be found ia some oher Po'
Tbsse nre statements OF Wetherel called out by the
counsel for Burrows and consequently legal testimony as
nreip.t Burrows As such they tend to showtaure anu
Abandonment on the part of BurTows ,
H. then Burrows failed to make yatenlaOe hvehuoh,
no matter how near he to H. aud matter what was
the cause of his failure, his experiment will not stand n
be- a.
yv Of the case whether Wetferell awaited him ell OF the
result of The experiments made by Burrows nor even
whether those experiments hrs auggestea % hm " vtI
orcW the very discovery which he aerward made' ne
who nally really makes the actual discovery Is entitled
10 he patent A. between Burrows and Wethero there
fore priority will he award, to the later Inc eo''es'
will therefore be between Wetherell and Jones;
There is doubt of Jones having bIst used urnace
similar to that finally adopted by Ws;heren for the PR
eqai purpose not 70 make zinc paint, but to tac.
=. i.alin
object he had in view The iron in the zinc ore served as
Aux to the material OF which the retors used in tho re
tose retorts TO obviae this difficulty he sought TO sep
arate the zinc the iron and this was the END Tor
which he instituted his experiments
The fact Of bis having such purpose would not Prelu
dice bis rights ii he had made di'corery though diff
fired ever much from that he was seeking but AFTER
r,,l examination of the testimony there does not seom
snv GOOD reason 10 conclude flat he fairly be con,d
cred as having made the substantial discovery when IS inc
INFECT matter Of the present controversy.
True he mny in in tanccs have succeeded IN OBJ
tanning the white oxide of zinc in imperfect state d.
recy from by the of fdnace very similar To
thu, finally used by WehereD but still he was not success
full He never discovered the precise mode or process o
wi ch tho reduction Of the should take place wthoM
tho agging which is wholly Incompatible with any idea
of success. , 4. .o.1
the exre meut as a failure The testimony clearly shows
that Jones himself so regardcdH.
Richard Jones states that having suggested me placing
of the fuel and zinc in contigpty be was assured by =
Jones that il would Stag they had frequently ioand ~
meut and that from the whole tenor OF h5 cOnduct
and conversation il was evident that be regarded the
permeuts failures. This was after he seemed 10 nave
ceased oxperineniiDg on that subject
Nathan Bartlett states that about the lat OF October
1882 hc heard JOnes harrington and Curtis state that they
tsd tried the same plan Wchere in High st. Newark,
and abandoned u as tmpracticatS
Tbfse statements were followed up by facts quite as an
eouiyocal Tie furnaces, aler many trials, were aoan
d6ned and other modes OF managing the zinc ore "e'e
adopted ,,..,..,,.,
Jones never fairly attained success. and he undoubtedly
abandoned bis experiments and all the fruits ihereoi and
theTe Il no probability that he would ever have recon
rafnccd thom or that the world would ever have been
L"6ed by the discovery Of this process had there been
sI,boucb Jores therefore approached very near hls
discovery sec 10 to conclude that ne eyer iay
oired H. and am therefore compelled TO conclude tnat
Were was the prior inventor within the talr meaning
law paten will therefore be allowed him, unless
an snrse be tsken from this dec son within thirty days
from this date, Dec. Il, l-53. ., - ,,
Pat,hf Cgoe Dee IL, 1853. CHAS hAsoH' o0n"H'"A'i'