The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-09-25


also held that q mere slight or color
| able variation would not avoid in
! fringement. So, in the present case,
the Ioupg patent may perhaps be
| limited to spiral ribs Of particular
pitch, namely, half the circnmfer
ence Of the roll as described il the
| specification, or, il may be. that the
statement ~ 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 so small
as to be nearly straight might be
| q merely colorado variation from the
| straight rib, just as in the case of
( slight change in the shape OF the
mould board, yet the change from a
! straight rib 10 spiral RIB with 3
/ 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 valid patent or not,
| would not constitute an infringe
ment.
In Isaacs vs.. Abrams, IA O.G., SCI,
/ it was held that where brushes of
uniform length had previously been
used for cleaning railroad tracks,
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 patentable, the Court saying that
"a change in the form of 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 patentabie."
In Winans VS.. Adam, 10 How $50.
the majority Give Justices) of the
| court held that n circular car IN the
shape Of a frustum Of cone was
pateutable and that the manufacture
| of an octagonal car was an infringe
ment of the patent for the circular
| car, iDasmuch as the OctagOnal 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 specifi
cation limited his claim to rolls with
! longitudinal 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 q 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
| rigan, 116 U. S. 593, in which it was
held that a patent for skirt protec-
tor described as including a futed
band could not be enlarged SO as to
include protectors without futed
| 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 infrip gement 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 capnot be allowed to cover
what the patentee does not in his
| specification add to the stock of
human knowledge. This is the con
sideration which he gives to the
public for the exclusive use and bene'
| fit of his invention for term of
years. Can it be held in the present
case, in the absence of any evidence,
| that the description of the rolls with
longitudinal ribs would naturally
suggest the use of rolls with spiral
ribs?
The case OF Blackman VS.. Hibbler,
II .. G., 107, is much in point. The
patentee secured a patent for COM
bination of a lamp chimney with the
top or upper portion constructed of
mica, and glass base to be used to-
gether, and afterwards secured re-
issue in which he claimed that "while
I have shown a peculiarly constructed
chimney as adapted for use in con-
nection with my base, it is obvious
other kinds or styles may be used, if
preferred" The Court held the re
issue void, as greatly charging the
scope of the invention by emitting
one element of the combination and
putting in its place another not its
equivalent, saying, ut may be that
the results accomplished by the use
of the top piece of lamp chimney
are, in most respects, the same, what
ever be the form of the top piece or
the material of which it is construct
ed; but the result is not in all
respects the same, nor would the
statement that a mica top piece
would be of use when firmly at
tached to the chimney base neces-
sarily or naturally suggest the
use of any form of top piece
not so attached to accomplish the
Same result; and it has not been
shown that any form of top piece was
known at the date OF the original
patent as a proper substitute for the
mica top piece described in the
patent"
The Dyer claim is narrow in its
terms. The invention itself stands
on narrow ground, as is the case with
most inventions of combinations.
The Young device apparently per-
forms functions to some extent differ
L. IL,