Cancellation of patent. Error of judgment by the commissioner in delaying action upon an application pending certain litigation, and the applicant's acquiescence therein, is no ground for canceling the patent.American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. A patent should not be canceled merely upon the ground of imputed fraud arising from delays of the patent office and the applicant's acqui escence therein. - American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. The issuance of a second patent to the same person for the same invention, where the identity of the inventions is not so clearly manifest as to exclude reasonable difference of opinion, is not an excess of power by the commissioner such as will justify a court of equity in canceling the patent. - American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. Where it is sought to cancel a patent for want of diligence in pressing the application, it is not for the court to say that the applicant was not entitled to use his own judgment in respect to what unofficial methods he might take, or the persistency of his representations for the purpose of moving the officials to action.-American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. An understanding between an applicant and the patent-office officials that further action shall abide the result of certain litigation relating to the invention, which understanding consists only in the interchange of the honest views of both parties that this is the best course, is no ground for cancellation of the patent subsequently issued.-American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. The statute defining the commissioner's authority to grant patents (Rev. St. § 4893), and that providing for relief against his decision by appeal to the proper court of the District of Columbia, and by a bill in equity (Rev. St. §§ 4911, 4915), operate to debar a court of equity from assuming jurisdiction to cancel a patent, in the absence of fraud or mistake or a clear ex cess of authority by the commissioner.-American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. Patentability. Prior conception and successful experiment do not constitute anticipation if abandoned without going further.-Mast, Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill & Pump Co. (C. C.) 213. A construction which had been very nearly approached, but never reached, by prior inventors, held to be patentable, in view of the facts that it met a recognized want, and was extensively adopted, and that the patent had long been acquiesced in by the trade. - National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id. That three skillful mechanics, acting independently of each other, suggested the same means of improving a machine, is persuasive evidence that the improvement involved only mechanical skill.-Haslem v. Pittsburg PlateGlass Co. (C. C.) 479; Same v. Standard PlateGlass Co., Id. Where a machinist and model maker, from the specifications and drawings of a prior patent alone, following a suggestion of the specifications, produced the device of the patent in suit, testifying that he had no difficulty, because such drawings and specifications made it plain, this was proof that the patent in suit involved held, in the absence of contrary evidence, that only mechanical skill.-National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id. A method for overcoming disadvantages in the use of celluloid for book covers held to show patentable invention, it appearing that the same was hit upon by the patentee only after continued experiment, and was not discovered by others engaged in similar work, and that it produced artistic and commercially successful results.-Horn v. Bergner (C. C.) 428. Novelty. The discovery that sheets of celluloid could be adapted for use as card cases and book covers, by sewing them between leather bindings so as to be held by the stitches, is sufficiently novel to support a patent.-Collins v. Gleason (C. C.) 915. Invention. devices found in coffee roasters, and applying Transferring the hinging and journaling them to waffle irons, does not involve invention. Griswold v. Wagner (C. C. A.) 494. There is no invention in forming a projecting socket to support the hinges of a waffle iron, and at the same time to give support to the raised half of the open pan.-Griswold v. Wagner (C. C. A.) 494. The discovery of a method of preparing peas by cooking and flattening them while moist, so as to produce flat disks, without breaking the individual peas, held to show invention.-Everett v. Haulenbeek (C. C.) 911. After the granting of several patents to the same parties, for the use of "maltha," with different compounds as a coating for fabrics, held, that there was no invention in dispensing with all solvents, and using pure maltha alone. -Reynolds v. Standard Paint Co. (C. C. A.) 483. Extent of claim. Where the terms used in the specification and claims indicate so clearly a particular meaning that no other can reasonably be attached to them, the patent must be construed in that sense, although this renders it impracticable and valueless.-Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570. In an action at law for infringement, where the existence of invention is doubtful, it is proper to submit the same to the jury under proper instructions. - San Francisco Bridge Co. Keating (C. C. A.) 351. Injunction. Where the specifications of a patent for treating rubber waste with sulphuric acid stated that "diluted" sulphuric acid was useless for the purpose, and that the invention rested upon the discovery that the rubber in the waste would resist the action of "strong" sulphuric acid, and that the strength would depend upon the pro--portion of fiber in the waste, held, that the claims should be construed as covering the use of sulphuric acid of practically the full strength. -Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570. Claims for treating rubber waste with sul-ufacturers.-Carter-Crume Co. v. Ashley (C. C.) phuric acid designated as "strong," "of sufficient strength," etc., held to be indefinite and insufficient in themselves, and requiring reference to the specifications to ascertain what degree of strength was required.-Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570. Assignment and license. An injunction pendente lite will be granted where the patent has but three years to run, and complainant has a large business, and the patent has been sustained in a substantially similar case, and defendants are but small man378. Pleading. does not show that the inventions covered by A bill for infringement of five patents, which them are used by defendants conjointly, or upon the same machine or apparatus, or are capable of such use, is bad for multifariousness.Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (C. C.) 913. A contract assigning all the assignor's discoveries, applications, and patents relating to "elecA bill for infringement of five separate pattric smelting processes and furnaces," construed, and held not to pass title to an applica- ents having been declared bad for multifarioustion for a process or reducing ores by "electrol-ness, held, that an amendment averring the conysis."-Lowrey v. Cowles Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. (C. C.) 354. A contract by which the parties convey a certain class of discoveries, applications, and patents, describing the class in general terms, will pass title to a pending application if it in fact falls within the class, although neither party at the time believed that it was in the class.-Lowrey v. Cowles Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. (C. C.) 354. Action for infringement. The defense of prior use cannot be sustained upon vague and contradictory evidence of witnesses who attempted to describe the details of a machine from memory after the lapse of nearly 30 years.-Singer Manuf'g Co. v. Schenck (C. C.) 191. Affidavits made by witnesses over 10 years before his hearing in respect to a machine which they had not seen for 20 years prior to making the affidavits are not admissible as evidence of prior use, when, even after reading them, they disclaim any present recollection of the features of such machine.-Singer Manuf'g Co. Schenck (C. C.) 191. v. Fourteen years' delay by a patent owner in making any attempt to assert his rights against an alleged infringer openly engaged in making a rival machine held laches.-Woodmanse & Hewitt Manuf'g Co. v. Williams (C. C. A.) 489. joint use by defendants of the subject-matter of each of the patents in one and the same apparatus should be allowed.-Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (C. C.) 914. Damages for infringement. There can be no recovery for damages and no accounting for profits where complainant has failed to allege either that the patented devices were marked "Patented," or that actual notice of the patent was given to defendants, as required by Rev. St. § 4900.- National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id. DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY, CON- Air chambers. provement in air chambers for forcing water for operating elevators, construed, and held void by reason of anticipation. - National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id. Autographic stencil sheets. The Hinkle patent, No. 183,055, for an im The Edison patent, No. 224,665, for an invention relating to autographic stencil sheets for multiplication of writings, sustained as a meritorious and useful invention, and held infringed.-Edison v. Hardie (C. C.) 487; Same v. Pomeroy Duplicator Co., Id. Bar fixtures. The Rothschild patent, No. 22,222, for a design for saloon bar fixtures, found not anticipated, and held valid and infringed.-R. Rothschild's Sons' Co. v. Mentel (C. C.) 716. Cable railroads. The Miller patent, No. 271,727, for an improvement in cable railways for raising the cable to the grip, held not anticipated.-American Cable Ry. Co. v. City of New York (C. C.) 227. The Otis patent, No. 228,107, for regulating the motion of elevators, and preventing accidents, held valid and infringed as to claims 3, 4, 6, and 7.-National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id. The Reynolds patents, Nos. 317,202, 456,122, and 458,917, for devices for controlling the operation of elevators, held void,-the first as to claim 1, the second as to claims 1 and 2. and the third as to claims 2 and 3.-National Co. v. Belcher (C. C.) 665; Same v. Morse, Id. Excavators. The Keating patent, No. 180,718, for an improvement in excavators, held valid in respect to the fourth claim (sustaining the verdict of the jury upon the question of invention).-San Francisco Bridge Co. v. Keating (C. C. A.) 351. Metal bloom rolls. The Moxham patent, No. 303,036, for an improvement in rolls for rolling metal blooms or piles into girder shapes, construed as to claim 2, and held to be limited to rolls having a "pass" substantially of the contour shown in the drawings, and therefore held not to have been infringed.-Johnson Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel Co. (C. C.) 212. Paper-Saturation with "maltha." The Pearce and Beardsley patent, No. 378,520, for a new article of manufacture, consisting of paper coated or saturated with "maltha," held void for want of invention.-Reynolds v. Standard Paint Co. (C. C. A.) 483. Peas-Preparation. The Beach patent, No. 215,313, for an improvement in preparing peas, held valid and infringed.-Everett v. Haulenbeek (C. C.) 911. Plate-glass polishers. The Haslem reissue, No. 10,872, for improvements in plate-glass polishers, held void for want of invention, and because, even if patentable. Haslem was not the first inventor. Haslem v. Pittsburg Plate-Glass Co. (C. C.) 479; Same v. Standard Plate-Glass Co., Id. Pumps. The Bean reissue, No. 8,631, for an improvement in pumps, is invalid as to its first four claims.-Mast, Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill & Pump Co. (C. C.) 213. The Martin patent, No. 339,445, and the Hooker patent, No. 259,394, for improvements in pumps, held valid and infringed, the first as to claims 1 and 3, and the second as to claim 1.-Mast, Foos & Co. v. Iowa Windmill & Pump Co. (C. C.) 213. Rocking chairs-Spring attachments. Patent No. 354,043, December 7, 1886, for spring attachments for rocking chairs, was not anticipated by No. 185,501, issued December 19, 1876.-Rocker Spring Co. v. Thomas (C. C.) 196. Patent No. 354,043, December 7, 1886, for spring attachments for rocking chairs, is infringed by a platform rocking chair with springs applied directly to the rocker and the base.Rocker Spring Co. v. Thomas (C. C.) 196. Rubber-Recovery from waste. 970, for a method of recovering rubber from The Mitchell patents, Nos. 300,720 and 249,waste by treating it with strong sulphuric acid at boiling heat, construed and limited, and held not infringed.-Chemical Rubber Co. v. Raymond Rubber Co. (C. C.) 570. Sewing machine band-wheel bearings. The Miller and Diehl patent, No. 224,710, for an improvement in band-wheel bearings for an improvement sewing machines, held not invalid on the ground of prior use. and held infringed.-Singer Manuf'g Co. v. Schenck (C. C.) 191. Sewing machine treadles. The first claim of the Cramer patent for the improvement in sewing machine treadles is not infringed by treadles manufactured under the patent granted to the Singer Machine Company, as assignee of Phillip Diehl.-Cramer v. Fry (C. C.) 201. The Grout patent, No. 261,446, for an improvement in sewing machines treadles, construed narrowly, and held not infringed.-New Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Singer Manuf'g Co. (C. C.) 224. Stoves-Vapor-burning attachment. The Klein and Woodard patent, No. 249,842, for a vapor-burning stove attachment, held valid and infringed, on motion for preliminary injunction-Woodard v. Ellwood Gas Stove & Stamping Co. (C. C.) 717. Telegraph and telephone. The Berliner patent, No. 463,569, for a combined telegraph and telephone, held (in a suit to cancel the same) not void on the ground of fraud, mistake, or laches in pressing the application to final decision in the patent office. American Bell Tel. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 542. Waffle irons. The Griswold patent, No. 229,280, for improvements in waffle irons, held void as to claims 1 and 2 because of anticipation, and as to claim 3 for want of invention.-Griswold v. Wagner (C. C. A.) 494. 324,658. Electric smelting processes, 228 338,868. Paper coated with maltha, 348,993. Paper coated with maltha, 91,665. Process of treating rubber waste, 573 348,994. Paper coated with maltha. GERMAN. 18,400. Gearing for lifts, 360 361 484 214 484, 487 481, 485, 487 348,995. Paper coated with maltha, 667 484, 485, 487 348,996. Paper coated with maltha, 496 378,520. Paper coated with maltha, 484, 485 479 196-198 483, 484 915, 916 for 22,222. Saloon bar fixtures, 716 paper, 485 24,024. Coffee roaster, 494, 496 456,122. Elevators, 665, 668, 669 27,176. Improvements in gridirons or boil ers, 63,753. Improvements in gridirons or boil 464,933. Electric smelting processes, ers, 496 363, 364, 378 67,478. Improvements in gridirons or boil 468,148. Process of obtaining aluminium, ers, 496 85,957. Process of obtaining aluminium, 357, 362, 366 96,930. Improvements in gridirons or boil 355, 362, 378 488,630. Book covers, 428 ers, 496 126,585. Improvements in gridirons or boilers, 10,359. Improvement in salesmen's check books, 378 496 131,910. Improvements in gridirons or boil 10,872. Plate glass polishers, 479 ers, 496 151,014. Improvement in elevators, 667 158,805. Electric smelting processes, 356 174,465. Telephones, 546 175,588. Pumps, 214 180,189. Windmills, 490 351 665 491 196-198 911, 912 491 487, 488 191 914 665, 666 494 PAYMENT. Where a party, at the time of making a contract for the use of a patented machine, tells the lessor that he understands better terms as to royalty are given to others, but accepts the machine on the terms offered him, and uses it, without making inquiry as to terms given others. or objecting on that ground, and afterwards solicits and receives modifications of the terms in his own favor, he cannot afterwards recover back part of the royalties paid, on the ground that he relied on false representations that the terms were uniform to all.-Bonsack Mach. Co. v. S. F. Hess & Co. (C. C. A.) 119. Perpetuities. 486 Rule against, see "Charities." 914 717, 718 571-573 Personal Injuries. See "Master and Servant"; "Negligence"; "Railroad Companies." PILOTS. The keel of a vessel towed through the middle of a channel in Hell Gate struck some unknown object; but subsequent examination showed no obstruction where libelant's evidence placed the vessel's course. Held, that no negligence or lack of nautical skill in the pilot was shown. Gypsum Packet Co. v. Horton (D. C.) 931. A display of the customary pilot signal on the usual cruising ground of pilot boats, and the visible approach of the boat towards an incom ing vessel, are a sufficient tender of pilotage, rendering the vessel liable for the statutory fee if she does not heed the tender.-Beebe v. The Yumuri (D. C.) 930. A vessel bound up the Delaware river to Philadelphia is bound to take the first available pilot who offers his services; and if she refuses him, and takes another, she is liable for his fees.-Marshall v. The Earnwell (D. C.) 228. PLEADING. be false.-Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America (C. C.) 459. The executors of one D. filed a bill for an accounting against C., alleging that he had obtained control of the affairs of D., an inexperienced woman, and had misappropriated her property and failed to account. C. denied the charges, and on the hearing there was a failure to prove that D. was under C.'s control, and it appeared that while she had had full opportunity for 10 years, while free from C.'s influence, to object to his management, she had never done so, and that C. held vouchers for his most important missed.-Halsey v. Cheney (C. C. A.) 763. In action for infringement of patent, see "Pat- transactions. Held, that the bill should be disents for Inventions." In equity, see "Equity." The rule that, on demurrer, facts well pleaded are taken to be true, does not apply where, by a public record of which the court takes judicial notice, the facts are shown to be otherwise.Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Groeck (C. C.) 609. Where a demurrer to several separate defenses has been sustained, a stipulation that some of them shall remain a part of the answer cures any error in sustaining the demurrer.Board of Com'rs of Kearney County v. McMaster (C. C. A.) 177. Pledge. Of corporate stock, see "Corporations." POST OFFICE. An indictment, under Rev. St. § 5480, for using the mails as a means to defraud, must directly allege that the scheme included the intended use of the mails in its execution.-United States v. Harris (D. C.) 347. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. Evidence in an action against a fidelity insurance company on a bank teller's bond held to justify a judgment against the sureties.--Metee Co. of North America (C. C.) 459. chanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America (C. C.) 459. A printed condition in a bank teller's bond issued by a fidelity insurance company requiring inspection of his accounts at least once a year is satisfied by a quarterly examination required by the contract executed at the time.-Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America (C. C.) 459. One who stands in the position of surety to another upon debts for which several distinct pieces of property are primarily liable has a right to object to the release of any part of such property from any of such debts, and so to the separate redemption of one part, by a lien creditor, from a prior mortgage.-Compton v. Jesup (C. C. A.) 263. An indictment for using the mails as a means See "Writs." to defraud must directly allege that defendant designed to accomplish his fraudulent scheme through the instrumentality of the post office.United States v. Long (D. C.) 348. Practice in Civil Cases. See "Appeal"; "Costs"; "Courts"; "Damages"; "Equity"; "Evidence"; "Judgment"; "Pleading"; "Removal of Causes"; "Trial." PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. See, also, "Master and Servant." Where an instrument is signed by an agent in his own name, with the addition of the title indicating his agency, evidence is admissible as against the principal to show that the obligation was intended to be his.-Society of Shakers v. Watson (C. C. A.) 730. Where a bond issued by a fidelity insurance company provides that the answers made by the employer to questions asked in the application shall be warranties, mere falsity of the answers is not sufficient to avoid the bond, but it must be shown that the employer knew them to Process. Protest. Against classification, see "Customs Duties." Until the determination by the government as to what lands, within the limits of the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, are mineral, in accordance with the exception in the grant and Act Cong. Feb. 26, 1895, no title to any of the lands passes to the company, and none of the lands are taxable.-Oakes v. Myers (C. C.) 807. The grants of land by congress in 1822 and 1827, in aid of the Illinois and Michigan canal, vested the lands at once in the state, the conditions as to filing maps and commencement and completion of the canal being conditions subse |