The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-09-26

llOuS duu ID USEFUL. HOI Is IL u6Cco-
sary that the change should be great
and striking. II is sufficient that there
has been an exercise, however slight,
OF inventive genius as distinguished
from mere mechanical skill. A mere
change in form has often been held
sufficient.
In Davis VS.. Palmer, 2 Brock. 29S,
q mould board for aplough was held
patentable, IFS face being worked to
circular or spheric lines Of particular
radii instead OF to straight lines,
although it performed the same kind
of work in much the same way, but
with a new effect. The patentee
described the radius of the larger
segment of the moulding board as
about three times that of the smaller
segments, but the court held the
word "about" to be surplusage, and
that the patent was limited to mould
ing boards the radius of whose
larger segment was exactly three
times that of the smaller ones, but it
also held that mere slight or color
able variation would not avoid in
fringement. So, in the present case,
the Young patent may perhaps be
limited to spiral ribs of a particular
pitch, namely, half the circumfer-
ence of the roll as described in the
specification, or, it may be, that the
statement in the specification that
any pitch may be used, will avoid the
patent because covering more than
is new in the invention. But, however
that may be, while the substitution
of spiral rib with pitch 80 small
as to be nearly straight might be
q merely colorado variation from the
straight rib, just as in the case of a
slight change in the shape of the
mould board, yet the change from
straight rib to 9 spiral rib with
pitch of half the circumference may
bring about results substantially diff
ferent, in which case the manufacture
and sale of the new device, whether
covered by q valid patent or not,
would not constitute an infringe
ment.
In Isaacs VS.. Abrams, IA O.G., S61,
it was held that where brushes of
uniform length had previously been
used for cleaning railroad tracks, a
brush Of unequal lengths, one por.
ton adapted to brushing the surface
of the rail and the other longer por
ton to clearing either side of the rail,
was p8tentable, the Court saying that
"a change in the form of a machine
or instrument, though slight, if it
works a successful result not before
accomplished in a similar way in the
art to which it is applied, or in any
other, is patentsble."
In Winans vs.. Adam, Is How, 800,
the majority five Justices) of the
court held that circular car in the
shape of a frustum of a cone was
patentable and that the manufacture
of an octagonal car was an infringe
ment of the patent for the circular
car, inasmuch as the octagonsl was
SO nearly like the circular car as to
be substantially the same thing. The
minority -four Justices) were of the
opinion that the circular car was not
patentable, or, if it were, that there
was no infringement, on the ground
that the first patent should be linn
tied strictly to the circular form
claimed.
An additional reason for holding
that there is no infringement in this
case is that Mr.. Dyer in his specif-
cation limited his claim to rolls with
ribs. And although
this might cover all variations that
are merely colorado, it cannot be
held to cover all forms whatever.
The patent does not cover more than
is claimed. A patentee cannot either
by securing a re issue based upon a
broader claim, or by argument, en-
large his patent so as to cover ele-
ments not falling within the terms of
his specification. See Shepard VS.. Car
rigaD, 116 .. s. 593, in which it was
held that patent for a skirt protec-
tor described as including a huted
band could not be enlarged SO as to
include protectors without huted
bands. Further, the public has
rights as well as the patentee, and
to entitle the patentee to set up the
use of any particular form of rib as
an infringement of his patent, his
description of his invention must be
such that those skilled in the art !
may be able from the description to |
make that particular form. The |
patent cannot be allowed to cover |
what the patentee does not in his |
specification add to the stock of |
human knowledge. This is the con
-ideration which he gives to the !
public for the exclusive use and bene-
IL OF his invention for q term of |
ears. Can it be held in the present
case, in the absence of any evidence,
ihat the description of the rolls with |
ribs would naturally |
iuggest the use of rolls with spiral |
ibis?
The case of Blackman vs.. Hibbler,
Ii D. e., 107, is much in point. The |
patented secured a patent for com
Of lamp chimney with the
.op or upper portion constructed of |
,oIoo and a Olocc boca ~ ba ,5ead -