Case Name: Application of POWER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-06-05
Citations: 281 F. 431
Docket Number: No. 1447
Parties: Application of POWER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 281
Pages: 431–431

Head Matter:
Application of POWER.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 9, 1922.
Decided June 5, 1922.)
No. 1447.
Patents (®=375--Sitig!s sale of machine two years before application bars right to patent.
Proof that a single sale of a machine embodying the claim of _ an application for patent was made more than two years prior to the filing of the application shows a dedication of the invention to public use, which bars applicant’s right to patent under Rev. St. § 4886 (Comp. St. § 9430).
<§z==>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Application by Nicholas Power for a patent. Application denied, and applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. B. Morton, of New York City, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.

Opinion:
VAN ORSDEE, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying a patent for an invention on the ground that a machine embodying the claim of the issue was sold by applicant more than two years prior to the date of filing his application for patent.
It conclusively appears that such a sale was made. This bars applicant's right to a patent, since the sale amounts to a dedication of the invention to public use. R. S. § 4886 (Comp. St. § 9430). Commenting on this provision of the statute, the court, in Smith & Griggs Manufacturing Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 237, 8 Sup. Ct. 122, 126 (31 L. Ed. 141), said:
"A single sale to another of such a machine as that shown to have been in use by the complainant more than two years prior to the date of his application would certainly have defeated his right to a patent."
See, also, National Cash Register Co. v. American Cash Register Co. 178 Fed. 79, 101 C. C. A. 569; Mayer v. A. & H. G. Mutschler et al., 248 Fed. 911, 161 C. C. A. 29; Wendell et al. v. American Laundry Machinery Co. et al., 248 Fed. 698, 160 C. C. A. 598.
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.