It is a fact in the history of almost every valuable invention that has been given to the world, that moneyed monopolies, and interested persons whose capital is invested in the manufacture of articles that will be rendered less valuable by the introduction of an improved article of the same class, have always conjoined their efforts to prevent the introduction of such improvements; and such will always be the case: consequently, it frequently happens that a large proportion of the life of valuable patents must be wasted in so bringing their merits before the public as to create a demand for them, despite the opposition of parties adversely interested. There is but little doubt that the improvement covered by applicant's patent is one of the most valuable ever introduced into road carriages. It not only gives more strength and durability to the wheels, but secures greater safety to life and limb.

The actual value of a patent in dollars and cents is very difficult to estimate, and I have but little confidence in the usual mode of ascertaining such values for Office use in extension cases; but I am satisfied that the value of Sarvin's invention is far beyond all he has received for it. Whether his invention is fully secured to him by his patent, I leave for the courts to determine. The extension is granted.

FISK, CLARK & FLAGG.

Reissue.

APPEAL FROM EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.

June 9, 1871.

In the matter of the application of Fisk, Clark & Flagg for the reissue of letters patent for MEN'S DRAWERS, granted to them February 4, 1868, as assignees of Henry Heath.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

This is an application for a reissue of letters patent No. 73975, issued February 4, 1868. The application was rejected by the examiner, on the ground that "the combination of parts alleged to be new is fully anticipated by the patent to H. Osler, August 18, 1863, and application of J. M. Davis, rejected February 10, 1860." "Bands are attached to most drawers at the ankle portion thereof, hence the article patented to Osler is so finished that the bands must conform to the line P J, which is the precise shape claimed by applicants."

The examiners-in-chief affirm the decision of the primary examiner, and in their report say:

The old style knee-breeches were made to fit by this method, as may be seen by reference to those of Washington, now in the Patent Office.

Knit drawers are often made with an ankle band to button, and nearly all the pants for young children, and many of the drawers made of cloth for men and women, are constructed with the ankle band. The idea that every little change in style, involving new combinations in cutting and seaming, and the exercise of mechanical skill to give it effect, is to be the prolific parent of a brood of patents, should be discountenanced. We see nothing in the thing claimed but a little ordinary skillful tailoring.

The parties do not claim a patent on reissue upon the band on the bottom of the leg of the drawers; but they claim "the combination of the pointed waistband of the drawers with a full leg having triangular portions removed from its upper ends, so as to obtain the requisite fullness at the hips and waist, without the necessity of gathers." They also claim "the combination of the ankle band of the drawers with a full leg, having a triangular portion removed from its lower end, so that the requisite fullness of the leg is secured without a surplus of material in the vicinity of the ankle."

The claim is for a combination of certain things described, by which the drawers fit easily, as well as being graceful, closely fitting the body and leg of the wearer, thus making not only a genteel, but comfortably fitting garment. To be sure, any straight piece of cloth, of bag shape, could be tied around the ankle and worn for drawers, but they would be clumsy and ill fitting, and unpleasant to wear. It seems to me that the curved ankle band, together with a removal of the surplus cloth around the bottom of the leg and above the hips, is a very great improvement in the fit of drawers.

The examiner refers to the application of J. M. Davis, rejected February 10, 1860, and the patent of H. Osler, August 18, 1863. Neither of these describe or claim the combination described in this application. I am clearly of the opinion that these references are not pertinent, and that the combinations claimed are novel and useful.

The decision of the board of examiners-in-chief is reversed, and a reissue will be granted.

G. C. STILLMAN.

APPEAL FROM EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.

Improvement in Catamenial Bandages, June 9, 1871.

In the matter of the application of G. C. Stillman for letters patent for IMPROVEMENT IN CATAMENIAL BANDAGES.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The references given by the examiner in this case are not deemed pertinent, and the other reasons given for rejection are trivial.

The decision of the board of examiners-in-chief is reversed, and the patent will issue.

EARLE & HOYT vs. C. F. DUNDERDALE.

Interference.

APPEAL FROM EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.

June 9,

1871.

In the matter of interference between the applications of Earle & Hoyt and C. F. Dunderdale for patents on IMPROVEMENTS IN MACHINE FOR GENERATING AND CARBURETING HYDROGEN GAS.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

Cleveland F. Dunderdale, of New York, obtained letters patent upon an apparatus for generating and carbureting gas, June 1, 1869, and for improvements on the same, July 27, 1869, and November, 1869. His present application for still further improvements was filed April 30, 1870. Earle & Hoyt filed their application May 4, 1870. Immediately after obtaining his first patent, Dunderdale commenced the manufacture of gas, employing Calvin and William Lightbody to assist him. He devoted almost his entire time and thought in making experiments to further perfect his invention. Upon the 3d of August, 1869, an agreement was entered into between Dunderdale and John T. Earle & Sons, of Danbury, Connecticut, by which they had authority to sell his machine in the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

It appears from the correspondence on file and other evidence, that mutual suggestions were very soon interchanged between Dunderdale and the Earles as to various changes and improvements which might be made in the machine. These improvements generally involved only mechanical changes, such as the change in the form of the bottom, the substituting of one kind of faucet or valve for another, the putting of a drip-pan on the inside or under the bottom, which had before been on the outside, and the putting of a pipe and valve on the outside which had been on the inside, &c. In fact, nearly all the improvements in controversy were such as would easily be suggested to the common mind in manufacturing and using the machine. It appears that all the machines shipped by Dunderdale to the Earles worked to their entire satisfaction, or, as they say in one of their letters, "machines work splendidly," and that they were "more than ever convinced of its superiority over any other."

It further appears from the papers on file, that the Earles, after they had been acting as Dunderdale's agents, induced him to let them manufacture in Connecticut, claiming it could be done much cheaper than in New York. Early in the fall of 1869, Hoyt became interested with the Earles in the manufacture and sale of the machine, and Dunderdale seems to have given, for a time at least, nearly the whole management of manufacturing to Earle & Hoyt. Hoyt wrote to Dunderdale, January 11, 1870, desiring to form a stock company for Pennsylvania; speaking also of great improvements having been made in the machine. Dun

derdale was still manufacturing on a small scale, employing the two Lightbodys, but sent to Earle & Hoyt from time to time for fixtures and for portions, constituting, in part, the improvements. Dunderdale claims he originally made all, or nearly all, the suggestions leading to these improvements. This is denied by Earle & Hoyt, who claim just the reverse. After Earle & Hoyt began to manufacture the machine in Connecticut, they became co-partners.

O. T. Earle having taken an assignment in Dunderdale's patent, they made from time to time suggestions one to another in regard to what they claimed would be improvement. Many of these suggestions, however, were those that neither party claim as improvements in their specifications. The examiners, in their report, say:

He (Dunderdale) claims that he had every confidence in them up to about March, 1870, disclosed everything to them, and treated them as his confidential agents, carrying out his plans and suggestions, and giving their mechanical experience and skill in his employment, and for the interest of his inventions, in which they had a resulting interest. This view would seem in a manner to be sustained by the way John T. Earle writes him, September 3, urging him to adopt the new form of bottom with "plugcock," &c., which was done, and is not claimed by either party.

In March, 1870, Dunderdale made out full drawings, showing all the improvements in controversy, had them engraved for a new circular with full descriptions of the improved machine, and on the 30th of April filed his application, now in interference. He claimed: 1st, screw-head (to cover the generator) with valves attached thereto, and rubber packing; and, 2d, the combination and arrangement of filling device N, indicator O, pipe M, paddles R, stirrers S, pipe W, drip-box U, valve P, guide Q, when arranged as set forth and in connection with apparatus patented to him, and used for generating and carbureting gas. It is evident that Dunderdale did not consider any one of the specific parts embraced in his second claim as separately worthy of a patent.

O. T. Earle, the son, says that he went to Washington to get out the necessary papers and drawings for Earle & Hoyt's application for a patent, and was there informed that Dunderdale had applied for the same thing.

The application of Earle & Hoyt embraces eleven claims, of which the first, second, fifth, seventh, tenth, and eleventh only are in interference. From an examination of this case, I am satisfied I cannot state the case more clearly, and arrive at what I deem just and right under all the circumstances and contradictions in the testimony, than to adopt the language of the examiners-in-chief, who say:

It becomes necessary, in a case like this, to resort to surroundings, and evidence of disinterested witnesses, if produced, to arrive at anything like a satisfactory conclusion as to who is entitled to the credit of the invention. In this case we are happily relieved from much embarrassment and doubt by reflecting upon the fact that Dunderdale stands confessed as the inventor of all the most material parts and features of the machine upon which the changes were made. We have his old machine to examine, and we have also the evidence of the gentlemen who manufactured it before Earles & Hoyt had any knowledge of it, and continued work after they became interested. We will then consider Earles & Hoyt's claims seriatim:

1st. The pipe outside connecting the carbureting chamber with the holder. In Dunderdale's old machine this connection, having valves, was on the inside and not easily accessible. But C. Lightbody says he heard Dunderdale suggest the change fully a year before, in July, 1869.

2d. Fans, &c., for agitating the liquid. Both parties claim this feature, and it is impossible to determine from the evidence who first originated or suggested it.

3d. Perforating pipe and partitioned carbureting chamber is only shown by Hoyt & Earle; but the perforated pipe had been suggested by Dunderdale, and was old in the same combination. This claim is not in interference.

4th. Swash-plate is only shown by Earle & Hoyt ; is not in interference.

5th. Cap and screw clamps, &c. C. Lightbody says Dunderdale described to him in middle of 1869, and this was before Earles & Hoyt knew of the machine; Parker also says he saw it on one of Dunderdale's machines in South America in 1869. There is no doubt but Dunderdale is entitled to what he sets forth in his first claim.

6th. Pipe with stop-cock for introducing oil into the carbureting chamber. C. Lightbody says that Dunderdale suggested this to him in July, 1869, before Earles & Hoyt had anything to do with the machine, nor is it shown in Earle & Hoyt's model.

7th. Miter valves for drawing off sediment. Although this is not embraced in Dunderdale's claim, yet he shows a similar device, which C. Lightbody swears was used by Dunderdale in 1869, and was in market known as "Adams's patent; " neither of them show it in their models. It is not patentable in itself, nor in the combination shown and claimed by Earles & Hoyt. It is but the substitution, at most, of one well-known device for another, and for the same purpose, shown in Dunderdale's old machine. C. Lightbody says that Dunderdale used it in 1869, as shown by Earles & Hoyt.

9th. Wire cone in wire basket, only shown by Earles & Hoyt, and not in interference. It is an old device for analogous uses.

10th. Manner of suspending the wire basket so that gas will not escape from the generator, &c. This was fully shown in the old machine, and C. Lightbody says it was resorted to by Dunderdale, in 1869, for identical purposes.

11th. With pipe a, with miter valve b. This was added after filing application as an amendment. Its full equivalent was shown in the old machine. It is but repeating the seventh claim. The pipe a is but a continuation of a, and both make the "discharge pipe" of the seventh claim.

There yet remains, then, only the second claim, embracing the fans or agitators which are to be used for mixing the acid and water, and breaking up any sediment which may become deposited in the bottom by whirling round the cylinder to which they are attached.

The evidence of Earles & Hoyt, in regard to this improvement and others, is rather vague and perhaps equivocal. They speak of having added it to the machines they were constructing, and of its having been suggested in September, but they do not tell us who first conceived it, or who first suggested it. To be sure, their general claim of inventing among themselves all the improvements would embrace this also. But their detailed and particular statements in regard to this special device might have originated with Dunderdale, and been communicated by him. They might have added it as his agents or employés in further adapting and perfecting his machine, or even if they added it of their own conception and suggestion, all parties might have considered they were so doing as manufacturers, using their simple skill in perfecting the machine in which they were interested, and which had been intrusted to them to put up in the most approved and satisfactory manner.

We have seen, in fact, that they did have all that Dunderdale had already reduced to practical form to begin with, and that they went on and adopted and wrought out others of his undoubted suggestions for additional improvements, such as those of their first, third, fifth, and sixth claims, &c., and it is therefore probable that they were but acting in the same way in regard to this device of the second claim; besides, having claimed so much which evidently belongs to Dunderdale, the mind is led to discredit their claim in this respect also.