Слике страница
PDF
ePub

AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Assignments, 4; Congressional Legislation.

1. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS-POWER TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF HIS OFFICE.-The Commissioner of Patents is the official head of a great and important public office, and has the power to institute investigations into the conduct of his office generally, with a view to the efficiency of the service and the eradication of corrupt practice, if such are found to exist. The manner in which such investigation shall be conducted is a matter within his discretion, and no court is vested with supervisory authority over him. * Moore, Commissioner of Patents, v. Heany, The Heany Company, and the Heany Lamp Co., 488.

2. SAME-SAME.-The Commissioner has the power, either in an ex parte or an interference case, to inquire and determine whether an application has been altered or substituted without authority. Whether such alteration shall have been made by the attorney of the applicant with the latter's connivance or consent is immaterial. The efficacy of the application would be destroyed by such alteration. * Id. 3. ALTERATION OF APPLICATIONS-CRIMINAL PROCEEDING-RES ADJUDICATA. The power of the Commissioner to declare as a result of investigation that an application has been destroyed by the reason of alteration is not affected by the fact that in a criminal prosecution against the applicant, his attorney, and another for conspiracy in the matter of such alterations the applicant was acquitted. The question adjudicated in the criminal proceedings was not whether the application had been altered, but whether the applicant was a guilty party thereto. The fact of alteration is not res adjudicata. * Id.

BANKRUPTCY. ASSIGNEE OF APPLICATION-TITLE OF TRUSTEE.-Where an application for patent is assigned and prior to the issuance of a patent thereon the assignee is declared a bankrupt, Held that the trustee in bankruptcy acquires no title to such application. In re Ives, 238.

BILL IN EQUITY UNDER SECTION 4915, REVISED STATUTES. See Trade-Marks, 51

PATENTABILITY.

a

The evidence presented considered and Held insufficient to overcome the rulings of the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia that the claims are unpatentable. Dilg v. Moore (substituted for Allen,) Commissioner of Patents of the United States, 255.

BLUEPRINTS.

See Interference, 1; Motion to Reopen Interference to Take

Testimony, 1. BRIEF. See Motion to Dissolve Interference, 10; Public-Use Proceedings, 1. 1. INTERLOCUTORY HEARINGS.-Where at a hearing on a motion for dissolution a brief was filed after the attorney had made his argument and near the close of the hearing, Held that this brief was filed in compliance with the ruling in Royce v. Kempshall. (C. D., 1905, 292; 116 O. G., 2011.) Stevens v. Patterson, 80.

2. SAME.

The question of allowing reply briefs to be filed is one within the discretion of the tribunal before whom the hearing is had. Id. BURDEN OF PROOF. See Abandonment of Invention, 3; Interference, 27; Motion to Amend Preliminary Statement, 2; Testimony, 3.

CANCELATION OF TRADE-MARK REGISTRATION. See Trade-Marks, 18. 19, 45, 107, 108.

CERTIFIED COPY OF FOREIGN REGISTRATION.
CERTIFIED COPY OF PART OF SPECIFICATION.
Applications, 4, 5.

See Trade-Marks, 85.

See Access to Pending

CHANGE OF MATERIAL. See Invention, 3. CITIZENSHIP. See Copyright, 2. CLAIMS. See Abandoned Applications; Access to Abandoned Applications; Amendment, 2, 3, 6; Appeal; Construction of Claims; Construction of Specifications and Patents; Divisional Applications; Division of Applications, 1, 3; Examination of Applications, 3; Final Rejection of Claims; Interference, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40; New Matter; Rejection of Claims; Reopening of Rejected Applications; Suggested Claims; Term of Patent.

1. SUGGESTION OF-PROCESS AND APPARATUS.-Where an applicant, in compliance with the Examiner's requirement for division between process and apparatus, divides out the process and files a separate application therefor, the Examiner should not suggest the process claims to other applicants who disclose the process but claim only an apparatus for carrying out such process. In re Werner, 17.

2. INDEFINITE-WHEN OPEN TO OBJECTION-REMEDY.-Only where claims are indefinite in the sense that they are ambiguous, equivocal, lacking in clearness, or unintelligible, shall the Examiner's action be in the form of an objection. The remedy from this action is by petition to the Commissioner in person. Ex parte Bitner, 32.

3. INTERFERENCE INTERPRETATION OF THE ISSUE.-The claims in issue which were first made by N. were not in his specification as originally filed, but were made after it had been amended. Held that the meaning of the claims must be determined by the specification as so amended. *Neuberth v. Lizotte, 350.

4. SAME PRIORITY-RIGHT TO MAKE THE CLAIMS.-The claims as interpreted in the light of N.'s amended specification, where they originated, call for twice bending the covering material-first at right angles to the edge of the flange of the eyelet and then over under the flange to secure it thereto. Held that as N.'s machine as constructed and operated and as shown in his application was not capable of operating in this manner N. has no right to make these claims. *Id.

5. SAME-SAME-SAME.-Count 7 specifies a machine for covering studs. N.'s machine as shown and illustrated could not be used for covering studs. Held that as he does not point out in his specification any modification of his machine by which it could be made to cover studs and as such modification would not be a mere matter of mechanical skill, N. has no right to make a claim in the terms of this count. *Id. 6. COMBINATION-USE OF TERM MEANS."-Where the invention claimed is a combination, Held that the term "means," followed by a statement of function, is properly readable on a structure in which such means consists of more than one element. Lacroix v. Tyberg, 215.

66

CLASS OF MERCHANDISE. See Trade-Marks, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 34, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 80, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 108.

COMBINATION. See Claims, 6; Construction of Claims, 2; Motion to Dissolve Interference, 19; Term of Patent, 2.

COMITY BETWEEN COURTS. See Trade-Marks, 21, 44.

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Access to Pending Applications, 2, 3; Appeal; Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia; Assignments, 2, 4; Authority of the Commissioner of Patents; Claims, 2; Congressional Legislation; Decisions of the Court of Appeals of the

District of Columbia; Interference, 7, 35; Jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia; Jurisdiction of the Courts over
Practice in the Patent Office; Mandamus, 2; Perjury, 2; Priority of
Invention, 2; Rejection of Claims, 1; Suggested Claims, 2; Supervisory
Authority of the Commissioner of Patents; Trade-Marks, 22, 36, 37,
42, 51, 64, 77, 78, 87.

CONCEALMENT OF INVENTION.

1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY.-L. made a device embodying the invention prior to V.'s conception thereof. He showed it only to the officers of his company, who laid it aside on account of other business, and no attention was given it by them or L. until they obtained knowledge of the work done by a rival company, V.'s assignee. Held that if the device made by L. was a reduction to practice he had forfeited his right to a patent by his concealment (citing Mason v. Hepburn, C. D., 1898, 510; 84 O. G., 147; 13 App. D. C., 86, and other decisions.) Lawrence v. Voight, 166.

2. SAME-SAME.-Where the development of an invention extended over a year and required the expenditure of $100,000 and was witnessed by a large number of employees and visitors and where the party so developing the invention was also the first to file his application, Held that there is no such concealment of the invention as to bring the case within the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn (C. D., 1898, 510; 84 O. G., 147.) Shiner v. Edison, 174.

CONCEPTION OF INVENTION. See Concealment of Invention, 1; Interference, 4, 24; Interfering Patents; Invention, 2, 4; Motion to Amend Preliminary Statement, 4; Priority of Invention, 3; Reduction to Practice, 6.

CONCESSION OF PRIORITY. See Interference, 15; Trade-Marks, 77, 78. CONFLICTING ASSIGNMENTS. See Assignments, 3, 4. CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

PATENT LEGISLATION-FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS.-" The Commissioner of Patents in passing upon applications or deciding controversies between rival applicants for patent of the same invention, exercises power that is essentially judicial. For that reason Congress has the power to provide for a review of his decisions by appeal to the courts." *Moore v. United States, ex rel. Lindmark, 483. CONSPIRACY. See Authority of the Commissioner of Patents, 2, 3. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS. See Claims, 3, 4, 5; Division of Applications,

1; Interference, 31, 32; Patentability, 2.

claim

1. PATENTABILITY-FUNCTION OR RESULTS-VAPOR-REGISTER.-The reading "In combination in a vapor-register, a dial upon which are marked pressures and heat characteristics and a device for automatically indicating on said dial simultaneous pressures and heat characteristics" and claims similar thereto were properly rejected as claims for functions or results. If allowed, they would cover means substantially different from those described which might be discovered by another for accomplishing the same results. *In re Gardner, 306. 2. CLAIMS-FUNCTION OF MACHINE.-A claim for a sound-producing apparatus consisting of a traveling tablet having a sound-record formed thereon and a reproducing-stylus shaped for engagement with said record and free to be vibrated and propelled by the same is not for the function of the machine, but sets forth a valid combination. **Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company and United States Gramophone Company, 536.

CONSTRUCTION OF RULES. See Access to Pending Applications, 4, 5; Affidavits Under Rule 75; Amendments, 1, 3, 5, 6; Appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief; Examination of Applications, 4; Interference, 13, 19, 34, 39; Motion to Dissolve Interference, 12, 16; Preliminary Statements, 2; Rejection of Claims, 1; Suggested Claims; Trade-Marks, 77. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND PATENTS. See Specifications. 1. PROCESS OF MAKING OPEN METAL-WORK PATENTABLE.-A claim for the "method of making open or reticulated metal-work, which consists in simultaneously slitting and bending portions of a plate or sheet of metal in such manner as to stretch or elongate the bars connecting the slit portions and body of the sheet or plate, and then similarly slitting and bending in places alternate to the first-mentioned portions, and producing the finished expanded sheet metal of the same length as that of the original sheet or plate, substantially as described," Held to set forth a novel series of operations independent of any particular mechanism and to constitute patentable subject-matter. **The Expanded Metal Company et al. v. Bradford et al., and The General Fireproofing Company v. The Expanded Metal Company, 521.

2. PATENTABILITY-APPARATUS FOR BREAKING AND TRANSPORTING IRON PRODUCTS-INVENTION.-A device for breaking and transporting magnetic products, consisting of the combination of an electromagnet, a hoisting device therefor, and a weight adapted to be hoisted and dropped upon materials to be crushed, Held to involve patentable invention over the prior art, which discloses in one patent a device for the same purpose consisting of mechanical means for hoisting a weight and releasing it and in another a magnet simply for hoisting and conveying magnetic materials. The invention lies in a new combination, which was not obvious in view of the prior art. *In re Eastwood, 418. 3. SAME EVIDENCE OF INVENTION.-Where the patents of the prior art were in existence for many years without suggesting to any one the useful device sought to be patented, and affidavits of those skilled in the art and having full knowledge of the anticipating devices are filed averring that the device sought to be patented never occurred to them, and the improvement is shown to be of great practical utility, Held that these facts constitute evidence that the improvement was not an obvious one. *Id.

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. See Abandonment of Applications, 6; Copyright, 1, 3; Delay in Filing Application; Interference, 20; Labels and Prints; Perjury, 1; Reissues, 1; Rejection of Claims, 1; Term of Patent, 1, 3; Trade-Marks, 50, 51.

FOREIGN APPLICATIONS-TIME FOR FILING DOMESTIC APPLICATIONS-SECTION 4887 OF THE REVISED STATUTES CONSTRUED.-In computing the time under Revised Statutes, section 4887, as amended by act of March 3, 1903, the day upon which the application in a foreign country was filed should be excluded, and where such an application was filed on February 23, 1903, an application filed in this country February 23, 1904, was in time. c Hess-Bright Mfg. Co. et al. v. Standard Roller Bearing Co., 266.

CONSTRUCTION OF TRADE-MARK STATUTES. See Trade-Marks, 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 18, 30, 38, 49, 50, 51, 61, 64, 75, 86, 95, 101, 102, 104, 106. CONTEMPORANEOUS USE OF MARK. See Trade-Marks, 102. CONTINUOUS APPLICATIONS.

DATE-DISCLOSURE IN PRIOR PATENT TO SAME PARTY.-An application disclosing and claiming subject-matter disclosed in a patent granted prior to the filing of such application can not be considered as a

continuance of the prior application, since after the application has eventuated into a patent there is nothing left pending before the Patent Office upon which it could act or to which the later application could attach. (Citing Spitteler and Krische, C. D., 1908, 374; 134 O. G., 1301; 31 App. D. C., 271; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., C. D., 1877, 171; 11 O. G., 246; 93 U. S., 487, and Cain v. Park, C. D., 1899, 278; 86 O. G., 797; 14 App. D. C., 43, distinguished.) * Wainwright v. Parker, 379.

COPIES OF ABANDONED APPLICATIONS.

Access to Abandoned Applications.

COPIES OF DRAWINGS. See Drawings, 1.

See Abandoned Applications;

COPYRIGHT. See Labels and Prints, 3; Trade-Marks, 1, 53.

*

1. ASSIGNMENT-SECTION 4952, REVISED STATUTES, CONSTRUED.-Under seetion 4952 of the Revised Statutes as amended by the act of March 3, 1891, (26 Stats. L., 1106, ch. 565; U. S. Comp. Stats., 1901, p. 3406,) providing that the "author, inventor, designer or proprietor of any book, map, chart, painting and the executors, administrators and assigns of any such person shall, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter, have the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing and vending the same," etc., the word "assigns" includes one who receives a transfer, not necessarily for the thing which is copyrighted, but of the right to multiply copies of it, and such right does not depend alone upon the statute, but is a right derived from the originator of the copyrightable thing and secured to the assignee of his right. ** Bong v. The Alfred S. Campbell Art Company, 530. 2. SAME

RIGHT OF ASSIGNEE TO OBTAIN COPYRIGHT-CITIZENSHIP.-If the author or proprietor of a copyrightable thing be a citizen or subject of a country with which this country has no copyright relations and by reason of which author cannot secure copyright protection in this country, the assignee of such author cannot obtain valid copyright protection, although under no disability as far as his citizenship is concerned. ** Id.

3. RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF FOREIGN STATES TO OBTAIN COPYRIGHT-SECTION 13, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, CONSTRUED.-Under section 13 of the act of March 3, 1891, (26 Stats. L., 1106, ch, 565,) which gives the right of copyright to a citizen or subject of a foreign state or nation when such state or nation "is a party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyright, by the terms of which agreement the United States of America may at its pleasure become a party to such agreement," and provides, further, that "the existence of either of the conditions aforesaid shall be determined by the President of the United States by proclamation,” a citizen of a foreign state which is a party to an international agreement to which the United States may become a party is not entitled to copyright protection in this country unless and until the President of the United States, by proclamation, has determined whether the necessary conditions exist. **Id.

CORPORATION. See Testimony, 5.

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. See Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia; Bill in Equity Under Section 4915, Revised Statutes; Decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia; Interference, 28; Jurisdiction of the Court

« ПретходнаНастави »