Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/232

 for the department of war, and the Attorney General of the United States, setting forth, that he, she, or they, hath or have invented or discovered any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used, and praying that a patent may be granted therefor, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Secretary of State, the Secretary for the department of war, and the Attorney General, or any two of them, if they shall deem the invention or discovery sufficiently useful and important, to cause letters patent to be made out in the name of the United States, to bear teste by the President of the United States, reciting the allegations and suggestions of the said petition, and describing the said invention or discovery, clearly, truly and fully, and thereupon granting to such petitioner or petitioners, his, her or their heirs, administrators or assigns for any term not exceeding fourteen years, the sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used, the said invention or discovery; which letters patent shall be delivered to the Attorney General of the United States to be examined, who shall, within fifteen days next after the delivery to him, if he shall find the same conformable to this Act, certify it to be so at the foot thereof, and present the letters patent so certified to the President, who shall cause the seal of the United States to be thereto affixed, and the same shall be good and available to the grantee or grantees by force of this act, to all and every intent and purpose herein contained, and shall be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose in the office of the Secretary of State, and delivered to the patentee or his agent, and the delivery thereof shall be entered on the record and endorsed on the patent by the said Secretary at the time of granting the same.

. And be it further enacted, That the grantee or grantees of each patent shall, at the time of granting the same, deliver to the Secretary of State a specification in writing, containing a description, accompanied with drafts or models, and explanations and models (if the nature of the invention or discovery will admit of a model) of the thing or things, by him or them invented or discovered, and described as aforesaid, in the said patents; which specification shall be so particular, and said models so exact, as not only to distinguish the invention or discovery from other things before known and used, but also to enable a workman or other person skilled in the art or manufacture, whereof it is a branch, or wherewith it may be nearest connected, to make, construct, or use the same, to the end that the public may have the full benefit thereof, after the expiration of the patent term; which specification shall be filed in the office of the said Secretary, and certified copies 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 429. Gray and Osgood v. James, Peters’ C. C. R. 394. Sawin et al. v. Guild, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 485. Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 182. Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 106. Barret at al. v. Hall et al., 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 447. Boston Manufacturing Company v. Fiske et al., 2 Mason’s C. C. R. 119. Dawson v. Follen, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 311. Evans v. Weiss 2 Wash. C. C. R. 342. Parke v. Little et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R. 196. Evans v. Eaton, Peters’ C. C. R. 322. The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson, 14 Peters, 448.

Proceedings and Pleadings for Violation of Patent Rights.—Ex parte Wood and Brundage, 9 Wheat. 603; 5 Cond. Rep. 702. Grant v. Raymond, 6 Peters, 218. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 429. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 153. Sullivan v. Redfield et al., Paine’s C. C. R. 441. Executors of Fulton v. Meyers, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 220. Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 215. Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 106. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 68. Isaacs v. Cooper, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 259. Evans v. Kremer, Peters’ C. C. R. 215. Ames v. Howard, 1 Sumner’s C. C. R. 482.

Evidence in Actions for the Violation of Patent Rights.—Evans v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454; 4 Cond. Rep. 291. Evans v. Hettick, 7 Wheat. 453; 5 Cond. Rep. 317. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gallis’ C. C. R. 478. Odiorne v. Winkley, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 51. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 153. Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 106. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 68. Evans v. Eaton, Peters’ C. C. R. 322.

Surrender and Repeal of Patents.—Ex parte Wood and Brundage, 9 Wheat. 603; 5 Cond. Rep. 702. The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson, 14 Peters, 448. Shaw v. Cooper, 7 Peters, 292. Grant v. Raymond, 6 Peters, 218. Delano v. Scott, Gilpin’s C. C. R. 489. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 153. Morris v. Huntingdon, Paine’s C. C. R. 348. See post.

See also Peters’s Digest, Patents for useful inventions.