Potter v. Tone

Potter v. Tone
36 App. D.C. 181, 1911 WL 20082
Bluebook cite
Potter v. Tone, 36 App. D.C. 181 (D.C. Cir. 1911).
36 App. D.C. 181
Item Type
Interference proceeding relating to the invention of a production of silicon monoxide. At issue was whether the junior party had sufficiently established utility, and thus reduced his invention to practice. The court agreed with a quote by the Examiner-in-Chief, who stated:

“To hold that {an invention} must be shown to be capable of use in some commercial process, and that process must have been successfully practised, would seem to amount to holding that the inventor must make a second invention, which might be the subject of another patent, and reduce that to practice before he could claim a reduction to practice of the original invention. The issues in this interference do not cover the use of the material in question for any specific purpose, but the production of a novel material of described characteristics, which characteristics may suggest many uses to subsequent inventors. Its value for educational purposes in demonstrating to chemists the character and properties of 'the long-sought silicon monoxid;' its use as a reducing agent in chemical reactions, and the fact that it is a nonconductor of electricity,-are sufficient to assist in promoting the progress of the useful arts and to establish the utility of the invention.” Id. at *2.

Excerpts and Summaries

Wednesday 19 of November, 2008 17:19:12 GMT
by Unknown
Wednesday 19 of November, 2008 17:19:12 GMT
by Unknown

Portions © 2006-2019 by Michael Risch, Some Rights Reserved | Copyright Notice| Legal Disclaimer