The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-15
NEW YORK HERALD SATURDAY MARCH 1 1s7a-TRpLE SHEET

pin could swivel and at the same time remain
tights omitted from the reissued patent In the
reissue the only object OF the invention as there
stated is the formation OF tight hose Joint by
means OF the combination OF certain old and
well known devices in the manner described.
Issued several grounds OF defence have been
here taken One OF them Is that the invention
which the ressued patent Describes Is worthless
and the patent involved, and this defence appears
to me to be supported by the proof The law upon
the subject OF utility is not in doubt No particular
amount OF utility Is required to render an inven-
ton patentable but there must be some. When
the invention Is shown TO be worthless the patent
must :ail such appears to be the he. case , IN the
any instance where the combination described
in the ressued patent OF 1869 has been
testlaes That he does not know Of any SUCH
coupling having been found to be OF practical use.
Although he sells couplings he never sold any such.
has been attempted. His testimony satisfied me
that the combination described In the patent here
that Couplings Se in
combination, which are described in the plaintiffs
reissue Of 1859, are IN use, and such are those
lings another essential element is pres
ent in the combination, which additional
reissue of 1863. This additional feature is a lug
which Is placed upon the inside OF the outer
thimble: opposite to the pin. In such manner that
thimble the inclined groove OF that thimble Is
pressed upon the lug, and that part OF the inner
LnlmDle LHtS IOTCeO up I'd lie OI OuUer
thimble at the same time that the pin itself, by
pressing the inclined groove when 1t Is touched by
the PIN forces that side OF the inner thimble up to
the shoulder Of the outer thImble; thus making a
tight Joint which cannot tilt, although the inner
thimble Is smaller than the inside Of the outer
thimble, and which cannot swivel or turn and be
tight The introduction of this element makes the
combination different combination from that de-
cided in the PLAINTIFFS patent OF 1862 This cOmbi
nation, in which the lug enters as an element, is
the subject OF another patent obtained by the
plaintiff in 1862 which he has not proved here, and
wherein he states that the lug is every essential"
This latter patent OF 1862 has been put in evidence
by the defence, and 1t affords strong support to the
position that the combination described in
the reissue Of 1859 proved worthless But 1t
Is said the introduction of the lug Is simply an
improvement. 1 cannet so consider it, The two
combinations distinct, because they have differ
ent elements and attain different result. In the
one combination ne lug appears and no practical
result Is attained. The introduction OF the lug for
the first time produced combination which accom-
plished very useful result. An added element
which increases the efficiency OF a combination Of
itself effective Is OF the nature OF an Improvement
but its gives birth to the only patentable (be
cause the first usefuD combination. NOtwithstand-
ing, then, the conceded fact that the combination
which includes the lag with other elements which
described in the reissue OF 1869 is useful 1t is
nevertheless necessary, in order to sustain the re-
issue, that 1t should appear that the device there
described which does not contain the lug Is OF
some utility. AS before stated, the contrary here
appears, and for this reason the patent must be
declared invalid.