The House of Lords Cases on Appeals and Writs of Error, Claims of Peerage, and Divorces; During the Sessions 1847 [-1866] Volume 5 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1870 edition. Excerpt: ...some other ingredient, the employment of those two things would have been a new discovery, not an infringement of the patent. The use of these two materials was never contemplated by the patent. The very terms of the description show them to be different processes, and they cannot be treated as the same, because the same result is produced by them both. It cannot be said, because carburet of manganese may be produced by the union in the melting pot of the black oxide and the carbonaceous matter, that therefore the carburet is used as the agent of the new process. At the time the patent was taken out, it was not known that the oxide of manganese and the carbonaceous matter, when put into the crucible with the blistered steel, would there form the carburet of manganese. It is said that the two things are equivalent to each other, but if that which is equivalent to a known substance is not known to be an equivalent, the discovery that it is so becomes a new invention. If they were known to the patentee to be equivalent processes, and he has only pointed out the carburet, which was an expensive article, while he knew and intended to use the oxide and the carbonaceous matter, he has done that which was highly improper, for he has not given the public the benefit of his real invention, and the patent is therefore void. The proportions of the chemical agents in the two processes are not the same; they are one to three per cent, of carburet of manganese in the patent; the oxide of manganese and coal tar 510 are now known not to be required in the same proportions, and if they formed part of the invention, the patentee should have explained how much of them ought to he used, for no person could tell by anticipation how much of those two ingredients would...

R1,055

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles10550
Mobicred@R99pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1870 edition. Excerpt: ...some other ingredient, the employment of those two things would have been a new discovery, not an infringement of the patent. The use of these two materials was never contemplated by the patent. The very terms of the description show them to be different processes, and they cannot be treated as the same, because the same result is produced by them both. It cannot be said, because carburet of manganese may be produced by the union in the melting pot of the black oxide and the carbonaceous matter, that therefore the carburet is used as the agent of the new process. At the time the patent was taken out, it was not known that the oxide of manganese and the carbonaceous matter, when put into the crucible with the blistered steel, would there form the carburet of manganese. It is said that the two things are equivalent to each other, but if that which is equivalent to a known substance is not known to be an equivalent, the discovery that it is so becomes a new invention. If they were known to the patentee to be equivalent processes, and he has only pointed out the carburet, which was an expensive article, while he knew and intended to use the oxide and the carbonaceous matter, he has done that which was highly improper, for he has not given the public the benefit of his real invention, and the patent is therefore void. The proportions of the chemical agents in the two processes are not the same; they are one to three per cent, of carburet of manganese in the patent; the oxide of manganese and coal tar 510 are now known not to be required in the same proportions, and if they formed part of the invention, the patentee should have explained how much of them ought to he used, for no person could tell by anticipation how much of those two ingredients would...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

July 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

July 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 17mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

318

ISBN-13

978-1-153-87797-8

Barcode

9781153877978

Categories

LSN

1-153-87797-X



Trending On Loot