US Patent: 5,483X
|
| Application of Felt for Carpeting
|
|
Patentee:
|
|
| Aaron Byington (exact or similar names) - Herkimer, Herkimer County, NY |
| Manufacturer: |
| Not known to have been produced |
|
|
Patent Dates:
|
| Granted: |
May 06, 1829 |
USPTO (New site tip)
Google Patents
Report data errors or omissions to steward
Joel Havens
X-Patents
|
|
Description: |
| Most of the patents prior to 1836 were lost in the Dec. 1836 fire. Only about 2,000 of the almost 10,000 documents were recovered. Little is known about this patent. There are no patent drawings available. This patent is in the database for reference only.
“This improvement consists in making felt by a carding machine (with a filleting doffer) of width and length required for pieces of carpeting of various patterns, large or small, with the aid of a webbing cylinder, a creeper, and felted in the usual manner.
After the felt is made, it is dried upon tenter bars, and sheared as cloth, and pressed. It is then printed, dried, and pressed, with a common clothier's press, when it is fit for floor carpeting, or coarse clothing, &c.
What I claim as my invention, and for which I solicit a patent, is, the application of felt to floor carpeting, &c.
The foregoing patent, it will be seen, is for a purpose similar to that of Mr. Harrington, which issued on the third of March last, (see page 412, vol. 3.) Mr. Byington, we are informed, claims to be the original inventor; and upon that ground has taken his patent.
Of their respective merits as inventors, we know nothing, but regret that Mr. Byington has framed his description in such a way as appears but little likely to establish his claim, even should it be founded in justice, particularly as there are no drawings, although such are absolutely required by the law.
The editor was superintendent of the patent office at the time the patent was issued, but neither saw the applicant or the papers until several days after the business was completed, or it would, probably, under his advice, have assumed a different form. It was one of those patents very improperly issued by a person who was at that time a clerk in the office, and whose conduct in this particular was mentioned in a note at page 409 of the last volume.”
Journal of the Franklin Institute Vol. 5, Aug. 1829 pgs. 123-124
|
|
