INDGSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERISG CHEMISTRY
April, 1926
index of the hazards of ethylizing. Monthly for the first three months, and every four months thereafter this group of employees shall have an examination, which shall consist of: Examination of blood for stippling, b y carefully trained workers, using positive and negative controls, without knowledge of the source of the slides. ( b ) Esamination of fecal samples of lead. Report as to general state of health. (c) ( d ) Weight, stripped. ( e ) Blood pressure estimation, diastolic and systolic, when sitting. (f) Hemoglobin estimation by Dare instrument. (a)
Exact records of these examinations shall be kept. 14-The results of the examinations shall be reported promptly t o the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.
Distribution of Ethyl Gasoline I-Each filling station shall have prominently displayed at the pump, or other conspicuous place, the following warning or one of similar effectiveness: “Ethyl gasoline is to be used as motor fuel only, and not for cleaning or any other purpose.” 2-Suitable leaflets shall be available at all filling stations where ethyl gasoline is sold, for distribution on request. These leaflets shall describe the possible dangers and precautions to be taken in the use of ethyl gasoline. 3-Containers of ethyl gasoline sold to the general public shall be labeled: “Ethyl gasoline containing tetraethyl lead. To be used for motor fuel only.”
433
Automobile Garages, Repair Shops, Service Stations, and Filling Stations 1-Automobile garages or repair shops holding more than five cars and all public service stations and filling stations for automobiles should be registered with the local health department. 2-In addition to doors and t o window ventilation in summer, automobile garages, repair shops, service stations, and filling stations should have permanently operative ventilation a t least equivalent t o that given by an opening or openings a t ceiling level free to the outside air, but protected from down drafts, with cross section of 0.2 per cent of the floor space available for cars, together with a n opening or openings for inlet near floor level of corresponding effectiveness, both arranged to give positive dilution of exhaust gases as generated. This is to be taken as a minimum, special conditions requiring greater permanent ventilation. 3-Automobile garages, repair shops, service stations, and filling stations should be kept reasonably clean and free from dust by means of flushing out and moist sweeping or vacuum cleaning. 4-Automobile garages, repair shops, service stations, and filling stations should keep conspicuously posted a copy of these regulations with the following statements in large type: Automobile exhaust gas i s dangerous. Motors should not run longer than 30 seconds unless the car i s in motion or the exhaust i s directly connected to the outside air. Liquids sold as motor fuel, except ordinary gasoline, should be used only as motor fuel, and not for cleaning or other purposes. The fumes f r o m the euaporation of even ordinary gasoline m a y be injurious.
Supreme Court Patent Decision By C. L. Parker1 908 G ST., N. W.,WASHINGTON. D. C.
Editor’s Note-Mr. Justice Holmes on March 8, 1926, delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in case No. 107 of the October term, 1925, which may have a far-reaching effect on patents of special interest i n the chemical field.
AN
IjMPORTANT disputed question regarding patents was finally settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Xlesander Milburn Company vs. Davis-Bournonville Company, rendered March 8, 1926. The Davis-Bournonville Company sued The Alexander Milburn Company for infringement of its patent No. 1,028,410, granted June 4, 1912, for an oxyacetylene torch for cutting metals. The patent was applied for on March 4, 1911, and no earlier date of invention by the applicant, Whitford, was shown. The defendant contended that Whitford was not the first inventor of the torch and showed that one Clifford h a d on January 31, 1911, filed a patent application giving a complete description of the Whitford invention and t h a t on February 6, 1912, patent No. 1,016,613 was granted on such application. The Clifford patent showed a structure which the plaintiff admitted “does comply with the requirements of the Whitford patent,” but although the Clifford patent might have contained claims covering the Whitford invention, if such claims had been presented in the application it did not in fact contain such claims. The plaintiff contended that as Clifford had failed to present claims t o the invention later patented by Whitford and as the Clifford patent, although filed before the application of Whitford, was not granted until after the date of filing of such application, Whitford was legally the first inventor of the subject matter shown in both patents but only claimed in the Whitford patent. This contention of the plaintiff was accepted by the District Court. Whitford was held t o be the first inventor of the subject matter claimed in his patent and a decision was rendered sustaining the plaintiff’s patent and holding it infringed. This decision was later affirmed by the Circuit Court of ilppeals for the Second Circuit. This holding that a patent cited to invalidate a patent sued a n is entitled to no earlier effective date than t h a t of its grant Patent Attorney
and not its date of filing if it merely discloses but does not claim the invention of the patent in suit, was in conflict with some decisions by another Circuit Court of Appeals, and to settle the much disputed point the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari t o review the decision of the appellate court. In a decision by Mr. Justice Holmes the Court, in reversing the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals, held in effect t h a t a patent is entitled t o an effective date a s a n anticipation as of the filing of the application upon which the patent is granted and not merely the date of the patent grant, providing it adequately discloses the invention, even though it fails to claim it, and t h a t the Whitford patent was invalid, Clifford and not Whitford being the first inventor of the torch. The Patent Office in the examination of patent applications for many years has followed this principle now definitely approved by the Supreme Court and has been sustained in its rulings on this point by its appellate tribunal, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, so that no change in the practice of the Patent Office will be necessary in view of the Supreme Court ruling. The decision in this case may have an important bearing upon the results of future litigation involving processes secretly commercially practiced for more than two years and after such use sought to be patented by a later independent inventor. The courts have generally held t h a t the secret commercial practice of a process for more than two years by the inventor or with his sanction bars the right of the inventor to patent the process later, and some courts have held t h a t in such a case a later independent inventor may secure a valid patent on the process notwithstanding such two years prior secret commercial use by another. I n its decision the Supreme Court emphatically asserted that the fundamental rule is t h a t “the patentee must be the first inventor,” and in the case of prior secret commercial practice of a process i t does not appear t h a t under the ruling of the Supreme Court a later independent inventor of such process could qualify as the “first inventor” of it and be entitled to a patent thereon which would enable him to restrain the practice of the process, even by the one who first put it into commercial although secret use.
