Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-07-24
ROLLED CAR WHEELS.
A Victory for the Fowler Company Of Chi
Cag0.

WASHINGTON, July 23.-The commission
er of patents has decided on final appeal a
well-fought patent Office controversy in
volving the exclusive right under letters
patent in and to rolled steel car wheels or
the manufacture thereof
The actual parties to the controversy are
the Fowler Cast Steel Car Wheel company
of Chicago and the Pittsburg Steel Cast
ing company of Pittsburg, Pa. The
proofs showed that long
time after the Fowler steel car wheels
had been publicly produced in Pittsburg
by means of a l00-ton machine, which had
been built in that city under Mr.. tower's
direction for his company, the Pittsburg
Steel Casting company, they commenced
producing car wheels of a substantially
similar character, and by the methods
secured under the Fowler patents. The
Pittsburg company subsequently became
the assignee of Clifton B. Beach, of Cleve-
land, who had long before received certain
letters patent pertaining to car wheels
of a different type, and who had,
after assignment, filed an application for
patent, professedly based upon a prior ap-
plication of his which for years had been
dead and abandoned application under
the law.
This contest was then inaugurated in
the patent Office by the Pittsburg Steel
Casting company. When their roofs were
presented, it appeared that Beach had
done nothing more toward advancing the
art than to make rough, crude sketches
and to write out his ideas about
two years before Patentee Fow-
ler's first conceptions. The Pitts
burg company sought to establish
reduction to practice by showing what
they had commenced to do before they be-
came the assignees of Beach, and also
what they had actually done In the manu-
facture of rolled cast-steel car wheels after
becoming his assignees.
The commissioner decided in favor of
Fowler. the patentee. thereby affirming the
decision of the board of examiners IL
chief, and the examiner Of differences. The
commissioner in his decision says
1t will be observed that an interval Of
nearly four years elapsed between aband-
onment of the method claimed of Beach's
first application and the filing of the APP
plication involved in this Interference, and
that meanwhile Fowler had conceived the
invention in controversy, reduced 1t to
practice, entered upon The use of 1t TO an
extensive scale and applied for and obtain
ed patent, and that nearly a year had
elapsed after the patent was
published to the world before Beach
filed the application no i'll coGtro-
versy. That an abandoned application
cannot Of itself constitute bar to con-
sequently granted patent is abundantly
esta blished
If the thing described in the abandoned
application is the same thing that is sub
sequently patented, it certainly does
establish the conception of the invention
as of its own date and if proof de hors the
patent, establishes reduction TO practice
or introduction into public use, and
the time of the reduction to practice |
or the public use is in dispute, then the !
application certainly shows that reduction |
to practice might have taken place at any
time subsequent to its date; but, whereas, F.!
in this case there is no proof even Of eX- |
pertinent, it can have no other effect than |
to establish the date of the conception of |
the invention which it disctoses. Since it |
is true that the rejected and abandoned |
application can have no other effect |
than to establish the fact and date !
of conception, it clearly follows in !
the absence of an effort during the inter |
vening years, while his rival was making |
the invention, pateuting it and giving it to |
the world. that Beach can not be heard to !
say that the patent to Fowler is null and |
and void, aud that he (Beach) is the one |
who is entitled TO the patent. Indeed, |
there is much in the case to show that if |
Fowler had not made, perfected and tested |
the invention and demonstrated its value, |
Beach would never have attempted to re- |
vive his old claims and seek to secure a /
patent