1 F.Cas. 1165 (C.C.D.C. 1841), 552, Arnold v. Bishop

Docket Nº:552
Citation:1 F.Cas. 1165
Opinion Judge:CRANCH, Chief Judge.
Party Name:ARNOLD v. BISHOP et al
Attorney:Thos. P. Jones, for appellant. Mr. Morfit, for appellee, Mr. Fitzgerald, for commissioner.
Court:Circuit Courts, D. Columbia

Page 1165

1 F.Cas. 1165 (C.C.D.C. 1841)

ARNOLD

v.

BISHOP et al

No. 552

Circuit Court, District of Columbia

October, 1841

Thos. P. Jones, for appellant.

Mr. Morfit, for appellee,

Mr. Fitzgerald, for commissioner.

OPINION

Page 1166

CRANCH, Chief Judge.

On the 19th of September, 1840, John Arnold made application for a patent for his invention of a " new and useful manner for forming the web of felt-cloth and web for other purposes," and in October following complied with the other requisites of the act of the 4th of July, 1836. A caveat, however, had been entered by George G. Bishop and John Aiken, who claimed to be joint inventors with the said John Arnold of the same machine; and on the 20th of March, 1841, the said Bishop and Aiken made application by petition for a patent for the same invention in the name of the said Bishop, Aiken, and John Arnold, averring it to be the joint invention of the three. The commissioner, on the 30th of March, 1841, decided them to be interfering claims, and notice was given to the parties by the commissioner that he would hear them on the second Monday in May, 1841, and they respectively took the depositions of several witnesses. On the 16th of June, 1841, the commissioner decided that it was to be considered a joint invention, and that neither of the parties can claim the whole, and rejected the application of all the applicants. From this decision Mr. Arnold has appealed; and the reasons stated are, in effect, that the commissioner has considered and acted upon evidence not competent according to the general rules of law, and upon testimony not taken according to the regulations prescribed and promulgated by himself; and that, independent of the evidence thus objected to, there is not sufficient evidence to establish the fact of joint invention. And Mr. Arnold's attorney asks leave to be further heard if his objections to the evidence should be overruled.

The evidence objected to consists of --

1. John Aiken's ex-parte affidavit in support of the same joint claim.

2. Letters from Mr. Rowley to the commissioner of patents, dated, respectively, March 15th, May 2d, and June 9th, 1841.

3. George G. Bishop's letters to the commissioner of 7th of May and 12th of June, 1841.

4. Mr. Rowley's deposition.

One of the objections to the deposition of Mr. Rowley is that the commissioner of deeds before whom the deposition was taken has not certified upon the deposition, according to the third rule, that it was sealed up by him. By the act of March 3d, 1839, section 12, it is enacted " that the commissioner of patents shall have power to make all such regulations in respect to the taking of evidence to be used in contested cases before him as may be just and reasonable." Under this authority, the commissioner made out and promulgated the following rules: (See statement of the case.) The first of these rules is evidently intended to apply to the initiatory proceedings in applications for patents and to uncontested cases where the commissioner may consider all the circumstances which may come to his knowledge. The other rules, viz., the second, third, fourth, and fifth, are applicable to contested cases where parties are to be heard; and in such cases, inasmuch as each party is bound by the rules, each party is also entitled to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP