« 이전계속 »
exclusive use of the process by this considerable period. This resulted from the enforced division of the application, and is not attributable to the conduct of the appellant, wbose original proposal was to take but one patent for both process and apparatus as related inventions.
The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is reversed.
BUBR 0. FORD AND FERGUSON.
Decided May 4, 1894.
68 O. G., 655. INTERFERENCE-HOOP-COUPLING—PATENT AND APPLICATION-PRIORITY.
A second patent for the same invention upon an application filed nearly three months after the patent issued is refused where the applicant made the hoopcoupling and tried it upon a strap around a block of wood, but soon afterward put it under his bonch, where it remained for more than two years and until after the senior party invented it, put it into practice, and obtained a patent therefor. APPEAL from the Examiners-in-Chief.
Application of Nelson Burr filed September 12, 1892, No. 445,657.
Patent granted Henry W. Ford and Richard M. Ferguson June 14, 1892, No. 477,173.
Mr. Louis K. Gillson for Burr.
Mr. Lysander Hill and Mr. T. J. W. Robertson for Ford and Ferguson. SEYMOUR, Commissioner:
This is an appeal taken by Burr from the decision of the Examinersin-Obief awarding priority.of invention to Ford and Ferguson on the following issues:
1. As a fastening and tightening device for tank-hoops, a coupling consisting of two metal blocks connected together by a straining-rod, one of said blocks being provided with a loosely-fitting socket for said straining-rod, and a transverse part extending away from said socket toward the center between the blocks and around which the end of the hoop is to be bent and which when the straining-rod is tightened up canses said metal block to press said transverse part toward the tank, and thus strongly clamp that portion of the hoop which extends between said transverse part and the tank, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.
2. As a fastening and tighteuing device for tank-hoops, the combination of the straining-rod D with the couplings B B, each coupling being constructed with the transverse part b', around which the hoop is bent and beneath which it is clamped to the tank, and with the transverse part b, arranged to come between the hoop and the tank and adapted to form an angle in the hoop when the latter is applied in connection with the couplings, substantially as herein set forth.
3. In a device for fastening a tank-loop, the coupling member B, consisting of a metallic block or casting provided with the transverse parts b b' to ongage with the hoop, the projecting lug b?, constructed to receive the end of the straining-rod and co-operato therewith, and the opening by between the parts b, b', and b? to admit and Accommodate the end of the hoop, substantially as herein set forth.
Ford and Ferguson, the senior applicants and patentees, while developing an invention of somewhat the same general character, conceived this, embodied it in a working device as early as February 17, 1891, and placed it on a filled tank, where it remained for six months. They made others in March, 1891. August 22, 1891, they filed their application for patent and the patent in interference isßued to them June 14, 1892. They have put the lugs upon the market in large quantities.
Burr, the junior party, filed his application nearly three months after Ford and Ferguson's patent issued, and on September 12, 1892. Burr dates his conception back to December, 1888, when he made a lug like the issue, which he put upon a strap of iron about a block of wood and which was seen by other persons in the shop. It was soon thrown under his work bench and there remained until Ford and Ferguson had conceived the invention and put it in use. It is claimed that other samples were made, but the evidence is not weighty or certain to that degree upon which the fact may be found. Had all that Burr did up to the reduction to practice of Ford and Ferguson been followed by nothing more on Burr's part, the inveution would not have been given to the world or abandoned to the world. Its later development by Burr was not achieved with reasonable diligence.
It is held that Burr has not made out a case that would warrant the issue of a second patent for the same subject matter.
The decision of the Examiners-in Chief is affirmed.
BOLEY 0. HEBBARD.
Decided May 5, 1894.
68 0.G., 655. INTERFERENCE-ORIGINALITY.
Where the record for H, the senior applicant, establishes that he was alroads an inventor of a machine in theart, which he recognized as defective and sought to improve; that he made drawings of the improvement, from which patterns were made, and that a machine was built from the patterns under his supervision, acting under the direction of P, the sole assignee of the rival contestant, 8, and where the record for S sets up that I obtained the invention from him through P, but fails to establish the proportion, Held that H was the originator and inventor of the invention.
APPEAL from the Examiners-in-Chief.
MACHINE FOR MAKING COMPOSITION TARGETS.
Application of William H. Soley filed April 20, 1893, No 471,083,
Application of Albert H. Hebbard filed November 4, 1892, No. 450,973.
Mr. H. F. Parker for Soley.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief awarding priority of invention to Soley on the following issues :
1. In a machine for making composition targets, the combination of a plunger, a device for feeding composition, a carriage, a rotary mold-block carried thereby, and mechanism for moving said carriage, wherein tbe said molil-block coincides with the said plunger and the said food device alternately, substantially as described.
2. In a machine for making composition targets, the combination of a plunger, a composition-feeding device, a rotary mold-block having a series of molds, a reciprocating carriage for carrying the mold-block into alternate coincidence with the plunger and feeding device, and mechanism for intermittently rotating the moldblock in one direction when moving from the plunger toward the feed, substantially as described.
As to the remaining issues, the Examiners-in-Chief affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in awarding priority to Hebbard. These issues are as follows :
3. In a machine for making composition targets, the combination of two plungers, a central feod, two mold-blocks adapted to coincide with one plunger and the feed simultaneously, and a carriage for moving said blocks into alternate coincidence with the plungers, substantially as described.
4. In a machine for making composition targets, the combination of two plungers, a central feed, two rotary mold-blocks containing a series of molds rotating in vertical planes, a mechanism for intermittently rotating said blocks into position for feeding, compressing, cooling, and dropping the work, substantially as described.
5. In a machine for making composition targets, the combination of a plunger, a mold-block, and means for moving the mold-block into and out of coincidence with the plunger, an automatic composition-feeding device having coincidence with the mold-block when it is out of coincidence with the plunger, said foed device consisting, essentially, of means for establishing a passage from the composition supply tank to the mold-blook when it is in coincidence therewith, substantially, as described.
Soley's invention has been assigned to Hallock A. Penrose, who is one of the real parties in interest in this controversy. Albert H. Hebbard, the other contestant, and Penrose, prior to 1890, were the princi. pal parties interested in competing establishments for the manufacture of composition targets, and in that year united in organizing the Stand. ard Keystone Target and Trap Company, to be located in New London, Conn. Prior to that time Penrose had contracted, for his company, with Charles Swan for the construction of one of the Swan machines, which was to be taken if successful and approved, and this obligation appears to have been assumed by the new company.
In April, 1891, after the organization of the new company, Hebbard, for the new company, went to Dunkirk, N. Y., to inspect the Swan machine, but condemned it. Hebbard was himself the inventor and patentee of a machine which was useful in this art, which was recog. nized by himself and Penrose as deficient, in that it spoiled many of the targets by the direct use of water upon them in cooling. The improve. ment involved in this interference substitutes for Hebbard's older linkbelt machine a revolving hollow mold-block, within which water is made
to circulate to keep the mold-block and the targets cool, and thus dispenses with the use of water directly upon the target. Hebbard made working drawings for this machine in the summer of 1891, and in October he took them to the D. E. Whiton Machine Company and ordered patterns from them. He personally supervised the construction of the patterns. They were completed about the middle of November, 1891, and paid for by the Standard Keystone Target Company..
In January or February, 1892, the patterns were taken to the Mor. gan Iron Works, New London, by Hebbard, acting under the direction of Penrose, and one machine was ordered. It was built under Hebbard's supervision, finished, excepting some trivial parts, delivered to the company in the latter part of March or first of April, 1892, and set up in the works of the company, where it was put in successful operation. Subsequently six more machines were ordered of this company. Hebbard left the company in July, 1892.
Penrose was not the inventor of the improvement, and so states in his letter to a firm of Washington attorneys, of June 30, 1892. John W. Dunbar, a mechanic at the same works, at one time claimed to be the inventor of this improvement, and has a patent for a double machine of this character, which is assigned to Penrose. Dunbar was a party to the present interference, but was defeated before the Examiner of Interferences, and has since dropped out of this contest.
Hebbard claims to be the inventor, and testifies that he conceived the invention in July, 1891, after his return from Dunkirk. Ho made application for a patent on November 4, 1892, and must be considered the inventor, unless the thought embodied in the machine was derived by him from Soley through Penrose.
It is claimed by Soley that he made a sketch of this invention in 1890, in Philadelphia, at the shop of William Wolstoncroft & Sons, when Penrose went there to have the Swan machine built. Doubtless a sketch of some sort was made at that time and handed to Penrose. What it contained is not so clear. It was claimed to have been reproduced by Soley three years afterward. A sketch was made, which is in evidence, marked "Soley's Exhibit 2," shortly after Soley had seen the Dunbar patent and the Hebbard working drawings, and how much of their contents has unconsciously been produced, along with the attempt to reproduce the original sketch, must inevitably be uncertain. If enough to give Penrose, who was not a mechanic, a fair idea of the invention, and if with the sk tch and what Penrose remembered of the conversation it was a year afterward laid before Heubard, and if as, so laid before Hebbard it was intelligible to him, and his subsequent embodiment of it was in substance the embodiment of Soley's conception, then Hebbard must fail for want of originality; but I am not satisfied that such was the case.
Hebbard, as a member of the company, took steps to apply for a patent, and without concealment wrote a letter to a firm of patent attorneys in Washington on June 25, 1892, the same to whom Penrose wrote a few days later, as before stated, in which he proclaimed himself the inventor, and stated in general terms the progress of the invention and its remaining imperfections, a copy of which letter was taken upon the letter-book of the company, from which it was put in evidence upon the cross-examination of Penrose. Presumably Penrose had knowledge of this letter. He does not say the contrary. At all events he made no objection to it. If Hebbard derived his ideas from Soley, it was through Penrose; but no conversation between Penrose and Hebbard is recited in which there is sufficient detail to make it a disclosure. Hebbard denies that there was any such conversation. It does not appear to bave been recognized in the company by any member thereof or by any workman that the machine in progress of construction was Soley's invention.
James W. Clinton, a consin of Penrose and the bookkeeper of the company, testifies that Penrose told him that they had this invention, and between April 15 and May 15, 1891, showed him the Soley sketch and explained it to him upon his asking Penrose what he thought of the Swan machine, which Hebbard was then examining in Dunkirk; but this must be a mistake, for on September 24, 1891, not more than five months later, Clinton wrote from the New York office to the New London factory of the company a letter which clearly takes it for granted that at that time they had no way of making targets without the direct action of water and deplores it. Moreover, Penrose, as late as July 30, 1892, wrote a lengthy letter to the Washington firm of attorneys with whom Hebbard was in correspondence, in which he claims that Hebbard had promised to have this invention patented and had agreed to assign the same to the coinpany or to Penrose as an individual, and that Iebbard afterward said that he would like to assign to Penrose a half interest, which Penrose states in his letter was satisfactory. In the same letter Penrose inquires of the attorneys whether they were entitled to use the machines which they had ordered while Hebbard was in their employment, and also inquires whether they could obtain a patent under their own names or under Dnnbar's, who is stated to bave developed ” most of the ideas of the new machine.
It is not apparent how Penrose conld have thought Soley the inventor while writing these statements. He procured Dunbar to make application for a patent on the device in question. It is equally difficult to see how Penrose could have believed Soley to be the true inventor while he was aiding Dunbar to get a patent on it. It would seem that the idea that Soley was the inventor was an afterthought, which was attempted to be carried into effect after Hebbard and the company parted. His application was not filed until this interference between Hebbard and Dunbar began and times were set for taking testimony.