Turner & Seymour Manufacturing Company v. Dover Stamping Company 252 127 Turrill, administratrix, &c., the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Rail- West, Bradley & Cary Manufacturing Company et al., Eagleton Manufacturing Weston Dynamo-Electric Machine Company v. Arnoux et al. 293 White et al. v. Dunbar et al.. 85 Wiese, Dryfoos v-- 100 William Deering & Co. et al. Hussey Manufacturing Company v 286 Worswick Manufacturing Company et al. v. City of Buffalo et al. 267 DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOR THE YEAR 1884. EX PARTE FINCH. Decided April 6, 1883. 26 O. G., 273. DISCLAIMER Under Rule 42-SPECIFIC REFERENCES REQUIRED. Rule 42 contemplates such specific reference as will clearly identify the particular application referred to, and this should be effected by stating the serial number and date of filing of the application. APPEAL from Primary Examiner. DUST-COLLECTORS. APPLICATION of John M. Finch, filed December 11, 1882. Messrs. Doubleday & Bliss for the applicant. MARBLE, Commissioner: Applicant has filed two applications for patents for improvements in dust collectors. The drawings accompanying the applications are identical. In one the specific device is shown and described but not claimed, and in the other the device is shown, described, and claimed. The Examiner requires the applicant, if he desires to take out his patent for the specific device, to make a reference to his application in which the device was shown and described but not claimed, the claim in the latter application being broader than in the former. This requirement was made under Rule 42 of the Rules of Practice, which reads as follows: When an applicant makes two or more applications relating to the same subjectmatter of invention, all showing but only one claiming the same thing, those not claiming it must contain disclaimers thereof, with references to the application claiming it. 9373 PAT-—1 1 Under this rule applicant claims that it is sufficient for him to refer to another pending application, in which the device is shown but not claimed, without giving the date of its filing or serial number. It will be observed that the rule above quoted requires that where two or more applications are filed by the same inventor, all showing the same subject-matter of invention, but claiming it in distinct parts, that the applications not claiming a particular part must contain disclaimers thereof, "with reference to the application claiming it." There is no way of specifying the particular application in which the invention is claimed except by stating in the other applications filed its date of filing or serial number. If such statement be given, any person interested in any particular patent which may issue, or, in case one application is passed to issue before the others, can ascertain by inquiry where such application is, and what it contains and claims. This, I think, is the object and purpose of the rule. In requiring that such reference should be made in the present case the Examiner did not exceed his duty; on the contrary, he would have been remiss in his duty had he failed to make such requirement. Purchasers of rights under patents granted are entitled to be notified, so far as possible, of any application or patent which subordinates the patent under which they obtain their rights. If an application is pending which, when it ripens into a patent, will subordinate the patent which they desire to purchase, or under which they are operating, they have the right to be notified of such application, in order that they may protect their rights. The decision is affirmed. EX PARTE GRUSON AND SCHUMANN. Decided January 5, 1884. 26 O. G., 274. 1. OATH-SECTION 4892 REVISED STATUTES CONSTRUED. Section 4892 Revised Statutes does not authorize an applicant who is a resident of a foreign country to make oath to his application before any officer other than those designated in said section. They are "any minister, chargé d'affaires, con. sul, or commercial agent holding commission under the Government of the United States, or any notary public of the foreign country in which the applicant may be." 2. SAM-AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATHS DERIVED FROM UNITED STATES STATUTE ALONE. Such designated officials in administering the oath act by virtue of the authority conferred by the statute of the United States, and not by virtue of any power or authority conferred by the foreign Government. 3. SAME-OFFICER NOT AUTHORIZED. An oath taken before a judge of the royal Prussian court is not sufficient. APPEAL from Primary Examiner. |