icy of non-extension had been established, in 1861, would carry with it no implied power of renewal. But upon this last supposition the grant would have been for a new term of 17 years, and this was for the remainder of a term of 14 years. We think the fair and obvious construction of the act is that the patent was to be considered a good grant for 14 years from its date, with the right, of course, in the public to dispute its validity for want of patentability in the invention, or want of novelty, and so on, and with the usual right of the patentee to procure an extension, if the circumstances should justify the patent-office in granting it, of which the commissioner was the judge.
Demurrer overruled.
CALIFORNIA ARTIFICIAL STONE PAVING Co. v. PERINE.[1]
SAME v. MOLITOR.
(Circuit Court, D. California. May 7, 1881.)
1. LETTERS PATENT-ARTIFICIAL STONE PAVEMENTS-INFRINGEMENT.
The method adopted by the defendants in laying artificial stone pavement was as follows: They first laid down a section as wide, as the blocks were wanted, and tamped it down solid. When partially set these sections were cut into blocks of proper length with a trowel, the trowel cutting to a greater or less depth, according to the character of the material. Into the open joint thus made by the trowel was floated or rubbed some of the same material of which the block was composed. Then a top layer of finer material, containing a larger portion of cement, was laid on the lower section, pressed down, and smoothed over. The trowel was then passed along the top layer, cutting partially or wholly through it, directly over the cutting below. The joint. thus made in the upper layer was then smoothed over, and a joint marker, having a tongue from a sixteenth to an eighth of an inch in depth, was run over the line of the cuttings, marking off the joints. Artificial stone pavements constructed in the mode described, as used by the defendants, are infringements of the Schillinger patent.
2. SAME-INVENTION-TITLE TO UNSPECIFIED BENEFITS.
The patentee is entitled to all the benefits which result from his invention, whether he has specified all the benefits in his patents or not.
3. SAME SCHILLINGER PATENT-INFRINGEMENT.
The respondents having so constructed their pavements as to gain the advantages secured by the Schillinger patent, and by substantially the same means, they are infringers of the patent.
Wheaton & Scrivner, for complainant.
Parker, Shafter, and Duprey, for defendants.
- ↑ Reported by S. C. Houghton, Esq.
