Here FPN users can read, by themselves and without interpretations, in the interference of the patent case Kraker & Craig vs. Sheaffer, as Walter comes out brilliantly winner and the criminals Kraker & Craig leave embarrassed and ridiculed. On the other hand they can read too as nothing is said about Sheaffer is making eyedroppers or coins fillers, nor Craig pens nor under sub-brand nor anything else that does not come from his successful patent:
1) Craig has very clearly failed to discharge the burden resting upon him, lie has not established independent inventorship, or disclosure to Sheaffer and the circumstances in my judgment areall in favor of Sheatfer; and judgment will therefore be entered in his favor.Priority of invention of me subjet matter in issue is hereby awarded to Walter A. Sheaffer,the senior party.Limit of appeal, Sept, ‘22. 1916. H. E. STAUFFER.Examiner of interferences. Aug. 22. 1916.
2) Nothing about Sheaffer manufacture anything else that does not come from his successful patent
EXCEPTS FROM DECISION IN SHEAFER INTERFERENCE CASE IN PATENT OFFICE
Establishing Priority of Pen Patents of the Local Industry Gathering of Testimony and c conducting of Case Occupied Long and Tedious Period---Means Much in Way of Recognition Herewith is given a synopsis of the decision of the examiner in the pen patent case of Craig versus Sheaffer, wherein a litigation of long standing and expensive and trying trial work is determined in favor of the W. A. Sheaffer inventions. Directly the decision establishes the priority of the Sheatfer pen patents, and indirectly it removes a cloud from the future of the local industry which has risen far above any purely home commercial enterprise and now bears national distinctions and recognition unsurpassed by its notable competitors. The case has taken the examiners and the attorneys to cities of the north, south and central west. It has involved a deep study of the intricacies surrounding the patent privileges of a product which becomes a necessity \n every home and ofﬁce in the country. The ruling opens to the local factory and the local company the recognition of trade of the world and removes all estrictions on its development Examiner Stauﬁer, in closing his decision, makes a sweeping statement which leaves no doubt as to all the contentions of Mr. Sheaﬁer. He says: “Craig has very clearly failed to discharge the burden resting upon him. He has not established independent inventorship or disclosure to Sheaffer, and the circumstances in my judgment
are all in favor of Sheaffer." The case was defended by the Kraker Pen Company at Kansas City, which had assumed the interests of Mr. Craig. The case reverts to the month of January, 1912, at which time the local factory had already manufactured some 200,000 pens. The entire decision of the examiner is far tool engthy for reproduction, but the following salient paragraphs are taken to give a clear idea of the discussion and the pertinent points involved:
Final hearing February 1, 1916. in the United States Patent Ofﬁce. Patent interference No.
38392. Craig vs. Sheaffer, fountain pens. Application of Harvey G, Craig ﬁled April 9, 1914, No. 880,686. Application of Harvey G. Craig ﬁled February 27, 1914, No. 821.358. Patent to alter A. Sheaffer, granted November 24, 1914, No. 1,118.240, on application No_ 749,522 ﬁled February 19, 1913.Mr. Rudolph Wm, Lotz and Messrs Bacon and Milans for Craig, Chas M. Bush of counsrl. mony of Julius L. Schnell (rebuttal Qs. 222-227 and 391392) shows that he was an experienced tool maker and metal worker. A patent was granted to Sheaffer upon the “single bar" pen on August 25, 1908, No, 596,861. Prior to the date of conception alleged by Craig, Sheaffer had ﬁled three other applicatiOns for patents for inventions in fountain pens, upon which patents had either been issued or have since been granted.
No. 1,046,660 ﬁled March'21, 1912, December 10, 1912; No, 1,064,098, ﬁled March 21, 1912, issued June 10, 1913; No. 7,114,052, ﬁled November 18, 1912, issued October 20, 1914.) Harvey G. Craig, the junior party, after leave issued 11. B. Willson St C0., and Messrs. Brown, Nissen & Sprinkle for Sheaffer This interference is between the applications of Harvey G_ Craig, ﬁled February 27, 1914, and April 9, 1914, respectively, and the patent to Walter A_ Sheaffer, issued November 24, 1914, on an application ﬁled February 19, 1913. The invention in issue is an improvement on self-ﬁlling fountain pens in which an elastic ink reservoir is compressed by a bar which is acted upon by a lever pivoted in a slot in the pen casing. The end of the lever passes through a slot in an upper bar, and acts upon a second bar, attached to the ﬁrst bar. Upon releasing the second bar, a partial vacuum is produced by the expansion of the reservoir, the same thereby being ﬁlled with ink. This invention is referred to the "double bar” this way distinguished from the throughout the testimony as pen, and in ‘single bar" pen which the senior party manufactured before he began to make the double bar pen. Craig in his preliminary statement alleges conception of the invention about December 15, 1912; disclosure by means of a crude embodiment about December 16, 1912, and the manufacture and marketing by Sheaffer about April 1, 1913. Sheaffer alleges conception and disclose in January, 1912; disclose to Craig in November, 1912, He states that 200,000 pens involving the invention had been sold. This case is one of originality rather than of and reduction to practice in February, 1913. strict priority; only one invention has been made and the is the thereof Walter A. Sheaffer, the senior partner, is forty real question is, who inventor seven years old, and had been working as a jeweler for thirty years when he began the manufacture of fountain pens early in 1912. A considerable part of this time was spent at the bench. and his testimony (Q. 94) and the testing school in 1908 or 1907, was employed for about nine months by the Brown Shoe Company of St. Louis, Mo. He then became a clerk in the Adams Stamp & Seal C0., of St_ Louis, Mo., with which employers he remained for about six years, spending most of the time in the pen department selling and repairing fountain pens. In 1908 he spent a short time in the retail pen store of the Waterman Fountain Pen Company in New York City doing some repair work. As stated above, the question to be here decided is that of originality rather [than priority of the testimony is but invention. As is usual in such cases, in many respects conﬂicting, upon many points the parties agree, and as to these it will not be necessary to analyze or dis cuss the testimony in detail. Certain models were in the winter of 1912-1913. The parties diﬁcr in some respects as to who worked upon made these models, and as to the time they were made; but they agree they were completed between December. 1912, and February, 1913. Sheaffer, with the knowledge of Craig, took steps in February, 1913, to patent the invention in his own name. Although Craig knew this, he did not himself ﬁle an application, or take any steps to protect his rights until more than a year thereafter, during which period he remained in the employ of the Sheaffer Pen Company. During this period the company made and sold a large number of pens embodying the issue here in controversy. Craig contends that he conceived the idea shortly after he entered Sheafers employ in November, 1912; that be disclosed the same to Sheaffer, and that the models made in the winter of 1912-1913 were the result of this conception and disclosure. Sheaffer admits that the models were made at or but that they were made as the result of his own in about the time claimed by Craig. asserts dependent conception. He denies any disclosures from Craig, but on the other hand contends that he directed Craig. as an employee, no make the models from which the invention was ﬁnally developed. He not only denies that Craig disclosed the invention to him, but claims conception of the issue as early as January, 1912, long prior to the time that Craig had any connection with the Inasmuch as Sheaffer claims an business. independent early conception and has introduced evidence to support this claim, this matter will be ﬁrst considered, for if this contention is established, Sheaffer cannot under any circumstances be considered to have secured the invention from Craig. Sheaffer convention to claims to have ﬁrst disclosed his oﬁice in New York City. turer of fountain pens and parts thereof, and has Schnell is a manufacturer been engaged in the business for many years. Sheaffer in January, 1912, went to see Schnell in regard to parts of his so callcd single bar pen. He testiﬁed that while he was there he described to Schnell the two bar structure herein issue as The disclosure was made by means of sketches and an improvement over his earlier construction. by a so called Duryea bar which was found in Schnell‘s ofﬁce.by Schnell in every particular. ﬁrst witness called on behalf of Sheaffer, and he describes the structures which Sheaffer showed 1912.
examined by Craig, but was subtenaed This disclosure is corroborated Schnell was the him in January, He was not cross exas a witness for the junior party in rebuttal, and questioned at great length concerning the invention. His knowledge of the construction appears to be deﬁnite, and his testimony shows that he had a clear understanding of the proposed Arrangement. He not only testiﬁed to the date from memory, but ﬁxes the time by certain charges against Sheaffer made on his books for samples supplied at that time. Some eﬁ'ort has been made on behalf of Craig to discredit Schnell's testimony, but after a careful consideration of these matters the conclusion must be reached that he was a candid, straightforward witness, and in an honest and conscientious manner aimed to give all the information in his possession. There seems to be no substantial reunion why full faith and credit should not be given to his testimony. Inasmuch as his testimony fully supports the disclosure testiﬁed to by Sheaffer, it must be held that Sheaffer has established a conception of the invention as early as January, 1912. However, stated above, the testimony of Schnell must be regarded as establishing conception by Sheaffer as early as January, 1912.Since this was prior to the employment of Craig, and since Craig doesn't claim to have effected any actual reduction to practice except that produced by Sheafer early in 1913, Craig cannot prevail, and further consideration of the very large and involved record is really unnecessary. However, assuming that Sheaffer has not proved conception prior to the entry of Craig into this employment, still it is not believed that the evidence justiﬁes the conclusion that Craig independ ently produced the invention. On the other hand, it would have to be held that evidence shows the junior party derived his knowledge from Sheaffer as stated above, the burden of the proof is heavily on Craig. Sheaffer was a man of experience in the manufacturing of pens; Craig was an employee. The burden therefore is upon him not only because he is the junior party, but because of the rule that where an invention is claimed both by an employee occupying a subordinate position. employer and an employee, the burden is usually on the employe to establish the superiority of his claim Robinson vs. McCormick, 128 O. G, 8289;29 App. D. C., 98). As often happens in cases of this class, no third party was present at the time either claims to have disclosed to the other. Such cases must thin-fore usually be decided upon the circumstances and other actions of the parties. These,however, are sometimes more important and convincing than direct testimony. These circumstances are in this case in favor of Sheaffer, and they tend to show that Craig’s claim is an afterthought, produced or stimulated perhaps by George M. Kraker the. circumstances. Reference will nbe made to some of that Sheaffer came east in February, 1913, to ﬁle an application Loth Craig ad Kraker knew for patent, and they both knew that at that time he made arrangements for manufacturing the double bar type of pen. They also knew that the actual sale of pens involving the issue was begun in April of that year and continued thereafter. Yet neither party made any protest to Sheaffer, and Craig made no claim to the invention. Kraker was at that time a stockholder in the corporation, and continued so until January, 1914. contract with the Sheaffer company for an ex- the Kraker Pen Company was organized in August, Even when he sold his stock, he made a elusive agency for Kansas City and vicinity.1914, and Kraker entered its employ in January, 1915. Sheaffer Pen Company until January or February, 1914, where left at the instigation of Kraker and shortly thereafter made connections with the Kraker Pen Craig continued with the Company. If Craig really regarded himself as the inventor of this matter, it was clearly his duty to assert his rights as soon as he knew that Sheaffer laid but no such claim was, on the other hand, he left Sheaffer proceed with his manufacturing and selling arrange-claim to the invention made tnents without taking any steps whatever to de and it year thereafter and after the invention has proved fend his alleged rights. is not .until to be a. commercial success, that we ﬁnd Craig taking any active steps to patent the invention, Such delay in behalf of a party whose vital interests and then only at the instigation of Kraker. are at stake is always evidence that the claim is an ter thought, the result of some changed pur Thc effect ways discrediting to the claim, for such are not And it is only when there is some compelling reason is the clearest kind of evidence that the invention was in fact made by pose, connections or interests. is al the normal and reasonable actions of men .for the delay, or there the delayed claimant, that such claim can be sustained. The books contain numerous cases of this kind, and the decisions are uniform to the effect that where a party fails to claim the invention when it is his duty to do so, he will not thereafter be permitted to defeat another, except by evidence of the clearest possible character (Lloyd vs. Antisdell, 95 O, G., 1645; 17 App, D, C., 420; Scott vs. Scott, 98 O, G., 1650; 18 App. D, C., 490; Thibodeau vs. Hildreth, 117 O, G., 602; 25 App. D. C., 323). 'Moreover, tated above, the invention was not made until January, 1914, as Craig's claim to nearly a year after he knew Sheaffer had ﬁled his application, and then only at the suggestion of Kraker. In january, 1914, Sheaffer acquired Kraker's stock in the Sheaffer Pen Company, but Kraker was at that time given the exclusive agency for a certain territory. Craig was still in the employ of the Sheaffer Company, and had not as yet given any idea of his intention to But after the sale of the Kraker stock, the situation immediately changed. Kraker directly after this took Craig on a trip to Burlington, 1a, and at that time talked with him about the invention, and entered into some claim the invention. preliminary contract or agreement with him to ﬁght the Sheaffer claim .turned home, and Kraker went to Chicago to con Craig immediately result counsel, his present attorney (Kraker XQs.125-145). Shortly after Craig suddenly left then employ of the Sheaffer Pen Company, went to Chicago to execute his first application, and thereafter connected himself with the Kraker Pen Company at Kansas City. His second application was ﬁled somewhat later. Subsequently Kraker's contract with Craig was transferred to the Kraker Pen Company. This, thereafter, is apparently the cause of the interest of Kraker in the matter; and it is apparently because of his desire to control either directly or indirectly the double bar pen that led Craig to ﬁle the application therefor. But although his application were ﬁled early in 1914, no claims were then made which, in the examiner's opinion served to justify an interference, and the Sheaffer patent is sued November 24, 1914 made to the from the patent, and demanding the institution of Shortly thereafter amendments were Craig applications copying claims interference proceedings. No attempt will be made to discuss in detail all of the incident and circumstances which seem to require that the case be decided in favor of Sheaffer. to show Those above referred to are sufficient that under the circumstances here pre- case. However, one other will be added. There was another No. This involved Craig's application No. 821,- interference between these parties, namely, 37505. 358, also involved herein, and Sheaffer's application No. 732,087, not patent No. 1,114,052~ This was di But the application of Sheaffer upon which the said rected to certain other features of the pen. patent issued was ﬁled before Craig entered the employ of the Sheaffer Pen Company, that is, on 18, 1912. claimed certain of these features, his preliminary November Not withstanding Craig statement set up conception as of a later date, and judgment was entered against him. Craig explains that this matter was claimed by him through in advertance, and therefore ought not to have any “'hile the may not operate seriously against Craig, it show seﬁ'ect on this controversy. Incident a lack of care on his part in the preparation and execution of his applications. Craig has very clearly failed to discharge the burden resting upon him, lie has not established independent inventorship, or disclosure to Sheaffer and the circumstances in my judgment areall in favor of Sheatfer; and judgment will therefore be entered in his favor.Priority of invention of me subjet matter in issue is hereby awarded to Walter A. Sheaffer,the senior party.Limit of appeal, Sept, ‘22. 1916. H. E. STAUFFER.Examiner of interferences. Aug. 22. 1916.
Edited by RamonCampos, 15 January 2019 - 06:51.