Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,779. |
| Citation | 91 F. 381 |
| Parties | BOWERS v. SAN FRANCISCO BRIDGE CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John H Miller, for complainant.
D. M Delmas (R. Percy Wright, of counsel), for respondent.
The original bill herein was filed March 21, 1893, by the complainant, Alphonzo B. Bowers, against the defendant, the San Francisco Bridge Company, for the infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 318,859, dated May 26, 1885 for a 'dredging machine'; No. 318,860, dated May 26 1885, for the 'art of dredging'; No. 364,158, dated May 31, 1887, for 'dredging apparatus'; No. 364,571, dated June 7, 1887, for an 'excavator'; and No. 484,763, dated October 18, 1892, for an 'apparatus for dredging and transporting spoil.'
By his amended bill, filed September 15, 1893, the complainant alleges that, prior to December 9, 1876, he was the first and original inventor of certain new and useful inventions in dredging machines, machinery, and appliances, hereinafter more particularly described; that the same were new and useful inventions, not known or used by others in this country, nor patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, prior to the invention and discovery thereof by complainant; that they, at the time of his original application for a patent, had not been in public use or on sale in this country for two years, nor abandoned or proved to be abandoned; that, being such inventor, the complainant did, on December 9, 1876, duly and regularly make and file in the patent office of the United States an application for the issuance to him of letters patent for his said inventions, and that such proceedings were had in the matter of his application that, on April 18, 1877, his application was allowed, and a patent for his said inventions ordered to be granted and issued to him upon the payment of the final fee to the government of $20 within six months from the date of said allowance; that the complainant failed to pay the fee within the time stated, by reason of which his application lapsed; that thereafter, on April 16, 1879, under and pursuant to the laws of the United States and the rules of the patent office in that behalf made and provided, the complainant renewed his application in the patent office for a patent for his said inventions, and filed a renewed application therefor, using the original specifications, drawings, and models which had been made and filed December 9, 1876, and which were then on file in the patent office; that both in his original application, as also in his renewed application of April 16, 1879, more than one, to wit, several independent inventions were described and claimed, which, upon examination by the proper examiners of the patent office, were found not to be dependent upon one another, and did not mutually contribute to a single result, by reason of which a single patent could not be issued to cover them; that thereafter, and before the issuance of any patent therefor, and in accordance with the requirements of the patent office, and under and in accordance with the laws of the United States, the complainant did divide his original application, and filed divisional applications for his said several inventions; that one of the inventions described and claimed in his original application of December 9, 1876, and in his renewed application of April 16, 1879, was entitled 'Dredging Machine'; that, while his original application was pending, the complainant prepared and filed in the patent office a separate divisional application, describing and claiming his improvements in dredging machines; that nothing was included in his divisional application which had not been shown and described in his original application of December 9, 1876, and renewed April 16, 1879; that thereafter such proceedings were duly and regularly had and taken in the matter of his application that on May 26, 1885, letters patent of the United States No. 318,859 were duly and regularly granted and delivered to the complainant for his said invention, granting and securing to him, his heirs and assigns, for the term of 17 years from that date, the exclusive right and privilege of making, using, and vending the invention therein described throughout the United States and its territories; that one of the complainant's inventions, shown and described in his original application of December 9, 1876, and renewed April 16, 1879, was a certain new and useful invention entitled 'Art of Dredging'; that, while his original application was pending, the complainant filed in the patent office a divisional application for the issuance of letters patent for said hydraulic dredging apparatus; that nothing was included in his last- mentioned divisional application which had not been shown or described in his original application of December 9, 1876, and renewal of April 16, 1879; that such proceedings were duly and regularly had and taken in the matter of his divisional application for a patent that on May 26, 1885, letters patent No. 318,860 were regularly granted and delivered to the complainant for his said invention, granting and securing to him, his heirs and assigns, for the term of 17 years from that date, the exclusive right and privilege of making, using, and vending the invention therein described throughout the United States and the territories; that said last-named letters patent were designated by the commissioner of patents as the second division of the original application, filed and renewed as aforesaid; that while said original application, filed December 9, 1876, and renewed April 16, 1879, was pending, and prior to the issuance of any letters patent thereon, to wit, on April 29, 1885, complainant filed in the patent office a separate or divisional application comprising all the remainder of his inventions, shown, indicated, or described in his original and renewal applications, which were not included in the two prior divisional specifications upon which letters patent No. 318,859 and No. 318,860 were subsequently issued; that nothing was shown, indicated, or claimed therein which had not been shown, indicated, or described in said original application; that, upon an examination of said third divisional application by the proper officials of the said patent office, it was discovered that in this application, also, more than one, to wit, several independent inventions were shown, indicated, or described, which did not mutually contribute to a single result, by reason of which a single patent could not be issued to cover them; that thereafter, and before the issuance of any patent therefor, and in accordance with the requirements of the patent office, and under and in accordance with the laws of the United States, the complainant did divide said third divisional application into eight separate divisions, and filed divisional applications for his said several inventions; that one of the inventions described and claimed in said third divisional application was entitled 'Dredging Apparatus'; that while said third divisional application was pending, to wit, on February 26, 1887, the complainant filed in said patent office a separate or divisional application, praying for the issuance to him of letters patent for said 'dredging apparatus'; that nothing was included in said last-named divisional application which had not been shown and described in his third divisional application filed April 29, 1885, and in said original application of December 9, 1876, and renewed April 16, 1879; that thereafter such proceedings were duly and regularly had and taken in the matter of said divisional application for a patent on said 'dredging apparatus' that on May 31, 1887, letters patent of the United States No. 364,158 were duly and regularly granted and delivered to the complainant for his said invention, granting and securing to him, his heirs and assigns, for the term of 17 years from that date, the exclusive right and privilege of making, using, and vending the invention therein described throughout the United States and its territories; that, while said third divisional application was pending, the complainant filed another separate divisional application, on March 10, 1887, praying for the issuance to him of letters patent for an invention entitled 'Dredging Apparatus'; that nothing was included in said last-named divisional application which had not been shown, indicated, or described in said third divisional application, filed April 29, 1885, and in his original and renewal applications; that thereafter such proceedings were duly and regularly had and taken in the matter of said divisional application for a patent on said 'dredging apparatus' that on June 7, 1887, letters patent of the United States No. 364,571 were duly and regularly granted and delivered to the complainant for his said invention, granting and securing to him, his heirs and assigns, for the term of 17 years from that date, the exclusive right and privilege of making, using, and vending the invention therein described throughout the United States and its territories; that said last-named letters patent were designated by the commissioner of patents, and are known, as the fourth division of the said third division, or the seventh division of the original application; that, while said third divisional application was pending, the complainant filed another separate divisional application, on July 16, 1887, praying for the issuance to him of letters patent for an invention entitled 'Excavator'; that nothing was included in said last-named divisional application which had not been shown, indicated, or described in said third divisional application, filed April 29, 1885, and in his original and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mastoras v. Hildreth
... ... 922; Hale & Kilburn Mfg. Co. v ... Oneonta C. & R. S. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 129 F. 598; Bowers ... v. San Francisco Bridge Co. (C.C.) 91 F. 381, 416; ... Chadeloid Chemical Co. v. Frank S. De ... ...
-
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. American T. Corp., 5714.
...Co. v. DeForest Radio Co., 3 Cir., 28 F.2d 641; Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 9 Cir., 4 F.2d 463; Bowers v. San Francisco Bridge Co., C.C., 91 F. 381; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Westinghouse, C.C., 55 F. In our opinion DeForest disclosed a source of light operable to produce......
-
Bowers v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co.
...patent to Louis Schwartzkopff, of Berlin, dated August 9, 1856, for 'apparatus for raising mud and soil from the bottoms of rivers.' 91 F. 381. The based upon this prior invention, as showing the state of the art at the time Bowers applied for his patent, was pressed upon the attention of t......
-
Pettibone, Mulliken & Co. v. Pennsylvania Steel Co.
...33; Cohn v. Corset Company, 93 U.S. 366, 23 L.Ed. 907; Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrick v. Kalle et al (C.C.) 94 F. 163; Bowers v. Bridge Company (C.C.) 91 F. 381; Powder Co. v. Parker, Fed. Cas. No. There was also a drawing submitted of what was known as the 'Pet Stand.' In this stand, howev......