Browning v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 04 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 1407. |
| Citation | 271 F. 1017 |
| Parties | BROWNING v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted March 17, 1921.
Melville Church, of Washington, D.C., and George W. Case, Jr., of New York City, for appellant.
Richard Eyre and William H. Kenyon, both of New York City, for appellee.
The invention in interference relates to a talking machine with the mechanical parts inclosed in a cabinet. Prior to the invention in issue, the amplifying horn was situated on top of the reproducing mechanism and exposed to view. The present invention was designed to inclose the amplifier in the cabinet in such manner that it would give forth sufficient volume of sound. It also contemplates a plurality of doors to regulate the sound issuing from the amplifier. The issue is in a single count, as follows:
'The combination with sound reproducing means, of a co-operating amplifier, a cabinet inclosing the major portion of said amplifier and provided with an opening, of substantially the same size as the delivery end of said amplifier, and means to vary the quality of the reproduction at will on either side of said cabinet.'
The party Johnson filed his application January 12, 1906, on which a patent was issued January 11, 1910. The party Browning filed his application January 18, 1908. Browning copied the claims in issue from the Johnson patent in June, 1915, at the suggestion of the Patent Office, for the purpose of interference.
It appears that Browning, in 1897, prepared a rough drawing on the back of a dance card, disclosing the invention in issue. This was signed by Browning and certified to by two competent witnesses. This alone, we think, established conception and disclosure. This was followed, however, by other drawings and the construction of certain rough models, which clearly disclosed the invention. As Johnson's alleged conception is 1903, and the earliest date to which his proof will entitle him, is May, 1905, it must be held that Browning was the first to conceive and disclose the invention in issue.
It will be observed that we are here dealing with long periods of time. The action of neither party is indicative of great diligence. Browning conceived in 1897, reduced to practice by the construction of commercial machines at Kansas City, Mo where he was then located, in the latter part of 1907, filed in 1908, and presented the present claim in response to the suggestion of the Patent Office in 1915. Johnson conceived in May, 1905, filed in January, 1906, put machines on the market, through his assignee, the Victor Talking Machine Company, in August, 1906, presented his claim corresponding to the present issue in December, 1909, and was awarded a patent January 11, 1910.
But these dates are of little importance, since the case turns upon the single question of originality. Was Johnson an original inventor, or did he derive the invention from Browning? Browning entered the employ of the Victor Talking Machine Company, of which Johnson was the president, in 1901. His position was that of inspector of motors, indicating to some extent, at least, skilled knowledge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.
...board of examiners in chief and the Commissioner decided in Johnson's favor. The Court of Appeals awarded priority to Browning (50 App.D.C. 335, 271 F. 1017) and caused opinion mandate to be entered of record in the Patent Office. A certified copy of each of the four decisions was put in ev......
-
Penn Oil Co. v. Vacuum Oil Co.
...there is something in the record upon which to rest the refusal." Bijur v. Bendix, 52 App. D. C. 240, 285 F. 974, 975; Browning v. Johnson, 50 App. D. C. 337, 271 F. 1017. "It is not the law, however, that relief in equity will be denied when the only actual sale proven is one to complainan......
-
Abbott v. Shepherd
...1916, 44 App.D. C. 438; McAfee v. Gray, 1918, 47 App. D.C. 237; Lautenschlager v. Glass (1), 1918, 47 App.D.C. 443; Browning v. Johnson, 1921, 50 App.D.C. 335, 271 F. 1017; Bijur v. Bendix, 1923, 52 App. D.C. 240, 285 F. 974; Penn Oil Co. v. Vacuum Oil Co., 1931, 60 App.D.C. 96, 48 F.2d 100......
-
Orange-Crush Co. v. American Ornamental Bottle Corp.
...of Mas and secured a patent thereon, the appellant may not assert an estoppel against the first and only inventor. Browning v. Johnson, 50 App. D. C. 335, 271 F. 1017. The plaintiff also attacks that part of the decree by which infringement of the Mas patent was adjudicated, and the case wa......