The national Republican., 1866-12-15

court only apples 70 the mAohtne, eno ieeves the
original process sheltered By the rsissus there srs
several answers: II this process 70 anything more
than the function Of the machine II Is pursly ~
ehanicai proosss wrought BY the maohine, and BY
the machine alone II no working machine eoald
be made according TO the invention Of Arnold, then
no process was ever SUCCESSFULLY invented By him,
for there 10 no evidence that hs worked the process
srcspt BY the machine. The intellectual concsp-
tlon Of possible process without potential work
ing Of u out is not patsntabls. II an inventor
merely coneeives mechanical process In his mind,
and then sets to work 10 construct q machine 10
work that process, and works Il out In no other
way. and the machine fails to work successfully,
then his claim as IN inventor Of process Is as
groundless his claim the inventor Of machine.
Arnold having failed TO work this alleged process
except BY bis machine, and that machine having
'invsntion. in this snssf the patent act, fAll 10
But IL appeared tha. Arnold invs..sd mssh.n.
isal process Mat would BE- dlstinguishsd from ths
functions Of his naehins and which sonld farnisA
distinct ground Of claim for IN iavsation, still
there is In the Judgment Of the court an insspsra
bic dihiculty In the way Of thsss oomplainsnts
avsilinS themselves Of H. Thsy represented 70
oongrsSs, In the most solemn manner that this in.
vsatloa Of 1899 was ineohplsts sad worthless Of
he sssssqusnt invsnsion x 1855. they nuss
therefore bs deemed to have rspudlstsd any claim
to an Invention BY Arnold Of mechanical procsss,
and 10 hsys abandoned II, II any such claim had
ever sxistsd In Arnold or themselves. Congress
hsving passed che act for their relief based upo.
the fsith Of these representations equity and good
eonscisncs demand that they should Be- hsd 70 them.
The plaintiffs In error submit an extended srgu-
msnt on eli the points Involved, and say - 10 the
main question, that superior usefulness Of an In.
vsnton patented q not nscssssry 10 the validity Of
. patent. II the invention ID not dangerous or
hurtfu 70 public morals, bat 10 designed for use
ful purposs, II is In Judgment Of law, the proper
subject Of letters patent, and the grant cannot b
invadatsd BY evidence that u 10 less useful than
other lny:nsion. for the same purpose Or By ,vi,
the work produced by u is inferior 10 the products
Of other inventions IN the same line. When an in.
vsntion has become practically useful by subse.
qusnt improvements engrafted upon IT, BY judg
mont Of law that fact establishss that Il wss SUN
oisntly useful to sanction the validity Of th,
patent, And evidence Of the disass Of Il aftsr ths
grant Of the patent, and before the Improvement
have bssn snsratsd upon IL, will notinraidsts TIL
R. Rovl.y O. N. Keller and D R. Curtis, for .p
p4 ~ i.a Il oa.S s. cs..Miss 70 ces,. ccsso os.rul.. III
Motiss for Rs-aygumsns-Er parts A. H. Gar
Issi.-fn this case, which Is made test CASE fo
all Of iss class, The Chief Justice yesterday an
nounosd that on confederation Of the motion mad
for rs-opsning and rs-afgument Of the case II VA
ordsrsd,thst the same be overruled
Residsness Of tho Jndgss Of tie Supreme Court o
..r- the United States.
M Chief Justice Chase, z street north, corne
Of Sixth street west.
Mr. Justice Wayne, No. 2 Franklin Place,
street.
Mr.. Justice Nelson, National Hotel
Mr.. justice Grisr, No. north A strsst, capito
Hill. ~ ~
Mr.. Justice Clifford National Hotel. t
Mr.. Justice Swayne, Willard's Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Miller, National Hotel.
Mr. Justice Davis, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Field, Willard's Hotel.
John W. Wallace, reporter, National Hotel.
D. ". Middleton, clerk, No. 5oS New Jersr!
| avenue.