The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-06-20
EXTENSION OF THE GOODYEAR PATENT
DECISION or THE COMMISSIONERS.
usurD STATES PATENT OFFICE, June lsth, 1858

la Uyrrrp SrArrs PATENT OfEcE June 18th, 1883
In the matter Of the application Of Charles Goodyear,
for the extension of patent granted to him for "iIn
proyement in India rubber fnbrcs on the 18th day Ut
une lsAa and which issued In two separate pat
snts on the 25h day Of lS49 under the desg
nations of In processes for the manufacture
Of India rubber and Improvement in fclting India
rubber with cotton fibre - , ,tsei
II appears that on the S0th january ls44 the appli
can't through his agent fNewton obtained from the Eng
ih Government patent for this invention discovery
known in popular psrance process for vucaniEng
India rubber and on the 18th of June thereafter the
patent now sought to be extended issued from this
Office II is assumed and insisted by the contestants that
the American patent should have borne date with
the English and that in law II expired with It on the
Ot january last and in consequence 1t is denied that
the Commissioner has any authority to entertain pot
ton for It's renewal What shall be the date and du
ration Of patent IL question which must bc decided
by this Office on each original sppcation and in the
unfer consideration It was determined that it should
bear date the 18th june 1874, and should secure mo
nopoly Of the invention for fourteen years thereafter
this was irregular in view of the English patent it did
not render that issed by this Office void was held by
tho Supreme Court in Is Howard ll2, OReilly ct AL
vs. Morse ct nl Being Mt most yoidable it would seem
that should be treated valid until vacated by the
Judgment Of some judicial tribunal At ell events,
Whatever may be the power Of the courts the nstru
cnt it is not believed to be competent for the Commis
soner In q summary and in respects collateral
proceeding like ths TO revise and reverse former de-
cision Of this Office under which many rights have
been vested Were his power however, plenary In tho
matter should not hesitate to hold that the provisions
Of law cited do not sustain this objection, which has
been taken in the nature of plea to the iurisdicon
The 9Th section of tho act Of 1885, and the 9th section
Of that of 1882 being in ar naeria must be construed
together and the latter il not in it's terms, repeal
of the former, It can, according to well-settlcd
principle Of construction, be allowed to have that ef
feet only fat the provisions Of the two clearly
incompatible The statute Of 1896 declares that nothing
halt No
original and truo inventor Of the right to patent for
his invention BY reason Of his having previously taken
out letters patent therefor In foreign country and the
having been published at my time trahin sir months
nen preceding The filing Of his recaon and descngs And
uesr the acaM ahat request H. the patent shall take
date from the fling Df the specification and drawngs;
not however exceeding six months prior to the actual
issuing Of the patent 1t is sufficiently clear that this
clause appes only to those in which the foreign
patent has been issued bors but within SIX months Of
the filing Of the specification and drawings reference
the record however shows that the specification and
drawings in this filed the 18th of January,
1874 that the foreign patent instead Of having been
taken out bo contemplated by the act in fact
taken out fifteen days q the filing of the specification
aud drawings in this Office This would to relieve
the entirely from the operation Of the provision.
But should it be treated subject To the American
yaent was issued four and half months after the pub
cation Of the English the most that could be claimed
would be that the applicant might, on request, have
had his patent dated 10 have reached back to
the filing Of his specification and drawings, b he not
bound 70 do II is manifesty privilege bestowed and
not dnty imposed upon him. He did not choose to
avail himself of that privilege and hence the patent
went out properly bearing it's actal datsg Tho aOt Of
1889 asserts that no person shall he debarrcd from
ceivng patent for any invention discovery pro-
vded in the act approved tho 4th Of July 1886, to
which this is additional by Of the having
been patented in foreign country than six months
prior 10 his afp1aon: Propied That the shall not
have been introduced into public and common use in
the United States prior to the application for such pat
ent And provided also That In all cases spy such patent
shall be limited to the term of fourteen years from tho
date publication Of such letters patent. 1t will be
perceived that this provision is confined expressly to
invention or discovery for which letters patent shall
have been taken out in foreign country than six
months prior to the fling of the application here, and
declares such invention discovery pateDtabe under
limitations The act Of 1886 referred to this class Of
and in effect treated them unpatentabe. 10 this extent
is repealed by the eact of 1885, because uyeoncqe u H.
But the act Of 1886 refers to another and very distinct
class of in which the foreign letters patent not
published than months before TIE date Of the application
here and declares them patentabe To this latter class
aluson made by the act Of 1882 and this act is
in this respect in degree inconsistent with that Of
1886 and It processes to be not abrogatory Of but
additional to it, must upon the soundest principles
Of interpretation be held that this feature Of the act of
1886 remains in full force The closing language of the
clause quoted is not regarded in conflict with the
struction insisted The words are, Tin all ecey
such patent shall be limited, &c. What is intended by
every such patent ~ Undoubtedly the kind of patent
spoken Of in the preceding part of the section and
other to wit patent based invention for which
letters patent had been Issued in foreign country
than months before the filing Of the application here
may be very we'll supposed that Congress might
slider six months too small fraction Of time to require
its introduction part of the lifetime of the patent
and would therefore, leave it to be embraced not nt
the option of the applicant while to guard against abuse
the period longer, the inclusion of the whole
might be consistently and properly exacted
The novelty and original patcntabity of this nvcn
hed by the report of the examiner and by the depos
tions file But two leading questions, therefore,
main to be disposed Of:
lst Has the applicant used due diligence in develop
ing his invention and in introducing it into public user
ID Has he, from the and sale of the invention
ceyed reasonable remuneration for the tme ingenuity
and expense bestowed upon the sae and the ntroduc-
ton thereof into use
Upon the first point the testimony alike of the appli-
can't and Of the contestants and conclusive
From the first moment that the conception entered his
mind until his complete embracing period of
from sixteen to eighteen yearshc applied himself
ceasingy and enthusiastically to its perfection and TO its
introduction into use in every form that his fruitful
genius could devise. So intensely were his faculties
Concentrated upon that he have been incapable
OF thought or of action upon any other subject He had
no other occupation inspired by other hope cher
ished no other ambition He carried continually about his
person piece Of India rubber, and into the ears of
all who would listen he poured ncessantly the story
his experiments md the glowing language of his proph
ecies He wns according to the witnesses, completely
absorbed by it, both by day and night pursuing il with
untiring energy and with almost superun,an perscver
snce Not only were the powers of his mind and body
thus ardety devoted TO the Invention and it's ntroduc
uon INTO isc but every dollar he possessed could com
and through the resources of his credit the influences