* Prindle v. Brown, 24 App. D. C., 114__ d Proudfit v. Kalamazoo Co., 230 Fed. Rep., 120. Pym v. Hadaway, C. D., 1907, 209; 129 O. G., 2073_. Q. * Quaker City Flour Mills Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 43 App. D. C., 260_. ** Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U. S., 420_—. R. Page. 156 264, 285 119 218 178 ** Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron Co., 244 U. S., 285_-. 195, 264 237 d Rathbone, Sard & Co. v. Champion Steel Range Co., 189 Fed. Rep., 26__ Rawson et al v. C. W. Hunt Co., 140 Fed. Rep., 716_. 303 43 8 Ray v. Sweeney, 77 Ky., 14 Bush, 1----. 375 **Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S., 347-- 368 d Rectanus Co., Theodore, v. United Drug Co., 226 Fed. Rep., 545. 371 Redway v. Banham, 1896 App. Cases, 199_. 184 8 Regis v. Jaynes, 185 Mass., 458__. **Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, Pet., 657 ** Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S., 299 Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co., 52 Fed. Rep., 455 d Richter v. Reynolds, 59 Fed. Rep., 577---- ** Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U. S., 22. ** Root v. Third Avenue Railroad, 146 U. S., 210___ Rowntree v. Sloan, C. D., 1913, 94; 189 O. G., 1281. *Rowntree v. Sloan, 45 App. D. C., 207**Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall., 800_ Ruppert. Ex parte, C. D., 1906, 142; 121 O. G., 2327. ** Russell v. United States, 182 U. S., 516_. § Russia Cement Co. v. Lepage, 147 Mass., 206–. **Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S., 525. 371 102 368 376 376 246 250 65, 66 10, 11, 154, 155, 207, 208, 209 338 66 340 184 375 S. a Samson Works v. Puritan Mills, 211 Fed. Rep., 603_ d Sanitas Case, 139 Fed. Rep., 551---. 288 243 * Sarrazin v. Irby Cigar etc. Co., 93 Fed. Rep., 624_ 79, 206 ** Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U. S., 19 ** Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S., 42. 373, 377 373, 377 * Schartow v. Schleicher, 35 App. D. C., 347_. 171 d Schiebel Toy Novelty Co. v. Clark, 217 Fed. Rep., 760. Seacoast Canning Co. Ex parte, C. D., 1914, 24; 199 O. G., 617– * Seeberger v. Dodge, 24 App. D. C., 476__ d Sheffield Car Co. v. D'Arcy, 194 Fed. Rep., 686* Sherwood v. Drewsen, 29 App. D. C., 161.... Siexo v. Provexende, 1865, 1 L. Rep., 191– Page. 237 156, 172 d * Simplex Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., 43 App. D. C., 28.... Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al., 221 Fed. Rep., 637__ ** Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co., 163 U. S., 169–– * Slingluff v. Sweet, 45 App. D. C., 302 135 289 162 * Smith. In re, 14 App. D. C., 181. 160 * Smith v. Foley et al., 31 App. D. C., 518 199 ** Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U. S., 249– 250 Smith and Kimble. Ex parte, C. D., 1901, 231; 97 O. G., 2533_. 2 * Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. D. C., 65- 119, 120 ** Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U. S., 1–. 159 **Spear v. Belson, Federal Cases No. 13223. 250 ** Specialty Manufacturing Company v. Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Company, 174 U. S., 492. * Stamatopoulos v. Stephano Bros., 41 App. D. C., 590.... 368, 369 4 Standard Caster & Wheel Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. Rep., 162__ 3011___ Steinecke Company. Ex parte, C. D., 1906, 230; 122 O. G., 43 73 98 * Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. D. C., 245 ** Steward v. American Lava Co., 215 U. S., 161. *Stone v. Pupin, 19 App. D. C., 396__. ** Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Company, 243 U. S., 490 d Strause, etc., Co. v. Crane Co., 235 Fed. Rep., 126_ Sundh Co. v. Interborough Co. 198 Fed. Rep. 94_ 156 275, 276 173, 209, 211 349, 350 261 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 33, 228 Sundh Electric Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 222 Fed. Rep., 334 *Sutton v. Wentworth, 41 App. D. C., 582 § Swift v. Dey, 4 Rob. N. Y., 611__ Swift & Co. v. Hudnut, 117 MS. Dec., 379 a Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 230 Fed. Rep., 438 27 147 159 76 243 Thomson-Houston Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 130 Fed. Rep., 542- 18, 19, 21, 23, 227 43 "Toledo Plate Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co., 237 Fed. Rep., 364_. 282 ** Topliff v. Topliff et al., 145 U. S., 156–. 42, 43, 44, 251, 315 ** Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S., 82_. 370, 375 Turner Brass Co. v. Appliance Co., 203 Fed. Rep., 1001_-. 18, 22 28, 30, 227, 251 U. ** Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S., 224_. Union Paper Bag Machine Company v. Advance Bag Co., 194 Fed. ** Union Paper Collar Co. v. Leland, 1 Holmes, 427. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 10 Blatch., 109_. с ** Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 23 Wall., 530. d Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros., 173 Fed. Rep., 288‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus et al, 206 Fed. Rẹp., 570_ ** United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U. S., 224_ ** United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Mfg. Co., 156 U. S., 552 ** United States v. Fuller, 160 U. S., 593_ ** United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S., 508_. ** United States v. Hendee, 124 U. S., 309– United States v. Leu Huen, 118 Fed. Rep., 442_. ** United States v. Mouat, 124 U. S., 303_ ** United States v. Palmer, 128 U. S., 62– ** United States v. Rimer, 220 U. S., 547. * United States ex rel. Morris v. Scott, 25 App. D. C., 88– Universal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Co., 82 Fed. Rep., 228_. 4 Universal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Co., 92 Fed. Rep., 391. Page. 15 285 290 290 290 18, 227 371 252, 374 340 91 90 91 178 90 340 356 103 279 279 V. 'Vacuum Engineering Co. v. Dunn, 209 Fed. Rep., 219. 18, 19, 22 . • Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 140 Fed. Rep., 860 Wagner et al. v. Meccano, Limited, 235 Fed. Rep., 890__. 232 d Wagner et al. v Meccano, Limited, 239 Fed. Rep., 901-. • Watrous Mfg. Co., E. L., v. American Hardware Mfg. Co., 161 Fed. Rep., 362__ 279 * Wayne County Preserving Co. v. Burt Olney Canning Co., 32 App. D. C., 279___ 158 ** Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S., 580_. 29, 228 Weil and Grant. Ex parte, C. D., 1911, 249; 173 O. G., 1081. 56 4 Werk Co., M., v. Ryan Soap Co., 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. R., 122_ Wertheimer et al. v. Batcheller Importing Co., 185 Fed. Rep., 850_. "Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 59 Fed. Rep., 295 301 52 26 с d Western Glass Co. v. Schmertz Glass Co., 185 Fed. Rep., 791. Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 50 Fed. Rep., 662____ "Westinghouse v. Chartiers Valley Gas Co., 43 Fed. Rep., 582---- 22, 23, 26, 228 Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 131 Fed. Rep., 90_. 275 70 64 с Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 136 Fed. Rep., 599---. 64 Wickers v. McKee, 29 App. D. C., 4_. 156, 172 d Williams v. Mitchell, 106 Fed. Rep., 168_ 'Williams Calk Co. v. Kemmerer, 145 Fed. Rep., 928_. 184 51 Williams, etc., Co. v. Neverslip, etc., Co., 136 Fed. Rep., 210----*Wilson and Forrest v. Ellis, 42 App. D. C., 552 Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman, C. D., 1918, 9; 248 O. G., 1003_ Wise Soda Apparatus Co. v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker, 240 Fed. Rep., 733_ * Wolf & Sons, H., v. Lord & Taylor, 41 App. D. C., 514_. ** Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S., 87__ ** Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U. S., 221. Wood Manufacturing Company, John, 114 MS. Dec., 58..... * Yates v. Huson, 8 App. D. C., 93_. Y. Page. 260 124 154 236 205 11, 251 251 83 156 SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX. [Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior are indicated by a degree mark (°); decisions of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the letter "; of the United States District Courts by the letter b; of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by one star (*); of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals by the letter d; of the Supreme Court of the United States by two stars (**).] A. Abandoned experiments, without standing against award of priority where invention was concealed or suppressed. * Rees v. White______ Abandonment, combination of elements originally filed not to be abandoned or other elements substituted resulting in new idea of coöperation. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation___ Abandonment of applications, patent not necessarily invalid because applicant failed to prosecute application within two years from filing, Commissioner of Patents has authority to grant within jurisdiction given by section 4894, Revised Statutes. a Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co______ d Renewal application granted by Commissioner rebuts presumption of. *Murphy v. Thompson__. Withholding from public by inventor of his invention for an indefinite time for his own profit, in the eye of the law, tantamount to abandonment. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co----Abbreviation of names, Fred" being an accepted Christian name former decisions holding that affidavit should be required are overruled. Ex parte Bowen 66 Page. 185 317 269 130 239 1 Adaptation or improvement of well-known devices, where there is no substantial change in means or results, not invention. Wagner v. Meccano Limited Adoption and use, extent of protection flowing from. **United Drug Aggregation, not patentable because resulting in greater convenience and economy. **Grinnell Washing Machine Company v. E. E. Johnson Company. d Amendments, insertions in description or drawing in amplification or explanation do not invalidate a patent, especially where required by the Patent Office. General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric CoAnticipation, patent disclosing invention in controversy granted, after filing of application therefor, on an earlier application does not establish anticipation. Ex parte Thomas-. 231 369 363 261 11 Appeal, case appealed through various tribunals of the Patent Office as to whether a motion to dissolve be sustained or denied. *Field et al. v. Colman___. 135 Delay in filing not excused except for good and sufficient reasons. *In re Hitchcock__ 149 From unanimous decisions of Patent Office, burden of proof upon ap- 161, 162 154 |