The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-09-30
apparatus The m,iian Is resisted
upon the ground that there was n,

apparatus The m ,iian il reslstes
upon the ground that there was n,
patentahle novelty in the alleged
Invention and that the reissue il
void, because 1t includes that part of
the invention which has been abau-
doned 70 the public by the delay on
part OF the patentee in applying for y
reissue: The original patent was
granted to Stearns March IA, lS7o, IL
was reissred April l, 1873, number
0 Sii' snc was aSaio reissued at
divisions A, II. and G. on Feb,u-
ary. Z, 1852, judge wallscs says
tpinad that Slcarns was first aud
original inventor OF very yalushla
Improvement in duplex tsiegraphv.
which obvlated q serious practical d;f.
hcuity in duplex transmissions over
long lines by the interference of the
return charge, arising from static in
uuction, with the operation OF the re-
eaivinx Instrument ss transmitting.
ana no did this bv new COM
hlnstion OF Old iustrumsntalities
lie aided to the existing duplex tele-
grsph condenser, placed so that IL
would receive charge from thu hat
terry equivalent to tho charge which
the line at the same time received. and
would discharge that charge around
one coil of the relay at the same time
me line discharged Its charge around
the other coil, SO that the
armaiure between the second
COILS wonld not DO moved
by the discharge from tho liuo, ~ is
statsd In the affidavit of ono OF the de.
ienuants experts. No one before
Stoarns had endeavored to obviate tho
euects or the return current, duo to
tho static Induction upon the receiv-
ihs instrument in duplex telegraphy,
with the exception of varley, and tho
device used ny Varley WAS no, a
condenser, nor was IL in anv sense tho
known equivalents OF a condenser. Tho
real question Ia the case Ia declared to
he, whether the reissue, so far az IL al
isots the claim intringed, Is void.
Judge wallace discusses tho facts and
Tue law on the point and
r9marks ''that the reissue was
IN suit and was apparently designed
to overreach certsin ether patents an [
| subordin nate them to the complainapt's
monopoly. Tho reissue is not TO no
clticls5d because the clause of SOW.
eral divisions cover the Invention OF
Siearns in the broRdest aud ia the
narrowest form in which II ia capable
or use, but because 1t Is upon i.a face a
usGrant attefnpt TO enlarge tbs inven-
iion III order that the patent
misht be more available for the
| suppression of all competing
inventions. IL is we'll calculated to
misioad The public into the belief that
the .complainant enjoys practically the
exclusive control OF duplex And quae
rupicx telegraphy, as used over long
lines. A party seeking tho assistancs !
OF court Of equity to protect such q
patent, appesls TO ths conrt
10 bn as'ute TO discover lcgal right
which has not bsen suhvorted ia the
unluuhaablo attompt 10 encroach On
| the rights OF others. A complainant
| asking protection OF such q patent doas
not occupy an attitude which comes
! ir the visw Of court OF equity. III
| tho essential motive OF those ~ repro
sented the complainant In obtaining
The reissue was to ensnio tho complsin-
ant to assert colorado title to an in-
vention which all subsoqent inventors
| must pay tribute, this was an
iliegitimSte and an oppressive nature,
and the court should not be eager to
| come 10 their assiEtanca by
granting thom q ready pi0-
iminary to inal hearing.
Tho patent az Issued ia we'll calculated
10 suggest doubts an to Its VALIDITY,
and lead those who OK amined 1t to aup
pnsod that such au abuse OF tho staiua.
ry privilege cannot be toler.
atsd. Tko officers of tho
complainant have only themselves
10 blsme, II others had acted on the
assumption that the patent cannoi
stand. The defendant has acted upon
this belief. Under such circumstan ncps
the complainant should not have the
stringent remedy applied for, and It Is
not only within the fair discretion,
but IL Is the duty OF the court TO deny
preliminary relief and leave tho COM
plainant TO the ordinary relief at the
| tlual hearing,