Application, joint filed, sole application filed later cannot be treated as continuation of joint application. Ex parte Prioleau and Prioleau_‒‒‒‒ Attorneys, enlisted men not barred from practice before the Patent Office by statute. Opinion Solicitor Department Interior_.

Invention dedicated to the public or prosecuted for the Government, person in naval or military service may act as attorney provided no compensation is received. Opinion Solicitor Department Interior_ While under section 113, penal code, enlisted men may practice before the Patent Office, commissioned officers doing so may not receive compensation for their services. Opinion Solicitor Department of the Interior_.

B.

Bar to patent, requisites of patent cited to establish prior invention. Ex parte Thomas_.

C.

11

Cancelation of claims, invention differing from claims originally presented, relief from requirement may be by appeal to Examiners-inChief, but not by petition. Ex parte Pearson_

Requirements both for cancelation of claims and for division of application to be referred to the Law Examiner. Ex parte Pearson__ Certiorari, appeal to the Supreme Court from the circuit court of appeals, transcript of record filed for appeal treated as return to writ. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company__ Change in degree, patent may not be declared invalid because difference in degree only is shown, as in chemistry such difference might produce revolutionary results. d Corona Chemical Co. v. Latimer Chemical Co__ Claims, alternative not allowed, subsequent containing additional matter may refer back to but a single combination. Ex parte Holst and Leers

d

Disclosure in original specification, claims rejected, substitute claim
not be be read to cover withdrawn suggestions of variant structures
in order that such claim may be invalidated. Ruud Mfg. Co. v.
Long-Landreth-Schneider Co. et al.---.
Election of element of claim to system, applicant is estopped from
claiming that element per se. * In re Creveling.
Nebulous claims and allusions to alternatives with the purpose of
anticipating subsequent developments in the art, where more ex-
plicit statements would raise the question of new matter, con-
demned. "H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales
Corporation

Combination claim, claim referring to preceding claims plus additional
matter importing alternative meaning, depending upon which claim is
referred to, not in accord with long-established practice. Ex parte
Holst and Leers----

36

36

369

252

44

295

145

317

44

d

Not infringed where no equivalent is substituted for an omitted element. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒ Commercial success, not necessarily evidence of invention, but may result from mechanical skill and commercial enterprise. **Grinnell Washing Machine Company v. E. E. Johnson Company.

281

363

Commissioner of Patents, discretionary action of not to be controlled by mandamus. a United States of America, ex rel. Johnson, v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents____

Concealment of invention, where inventor puts aside his invention after reduction to practice till he discovers the invention put upon the market

by his rival priority should be awarded to the more diligent inventor. Dreckschmidt v. Schaefer and Holmes_____

d

Concurrent decisions of the Patent Office and court should not be over

turned by another court, especially where the members of the court are
d
not in accord. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting
Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing,
Commissioner of Patents)--.

Page.

93

120

310

Of three tribunals of the Patent Office not to be disturbed "unless manifest error has been committed." * Creveling v. Jepson----. Congress, power to legislate arising from authority to regulate foreign commerce and commerce between the States and with Indian tribes. **United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company-. Construction of

209

369

Claims

In view of state of the art of record, too broad. *In re Bech

man

Limitation which gives them life not to be ignored for the pur-
pose of covering the disclosure of one of the parties. Gam-
meter v. Lister____

Mechanical skill only shown in view of the state of the art.
re Palmer, Jr_____.

Prior art shows device unpatentable.

*In re Sunderland.

186

37

* In

195

143

201

Rejected by reason of the state of the art. *In re McNeal______
Review of record shows appealed claims, if predicated upon
disclosure, would have a meaning forced upon them robbing
them of their sense, Ex parte Creveling_.

5

To be construed as broadly as the state of the art permits, but limitations are not to be ignored. Gammeter v. Lister___ Unpatentable in view of state of the art. *In re Sunderland___ Rule XXI, section 2, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, *In re Hitchcock_

37

143

149

Rule 42. Ex parte Pearson....

36

Rule 75, Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office.
Ex parte Thomas_

11

Rule 130. *Elsom v. Bonner and Golde___
Specifications and patents-

66

116

d

Kuch, No. 1,090,992, Mercury-vapor lamp," valid, not affected
by award of priority to opponent in interference proceedings
as to certain claims, but not those finally allowed. d General
Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co----
Validity and infringement. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v.
Adler

261

218

Statutes, Section 2, act of May 4, 1906. Ex parte Vacuum Oil Company-.

tional Money Machine Company, v. Newton___. Section 4909, Revised Statutes. * In re Carvalho___ Section 4915, Revised Statutes. d Edward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing, Commissioner of Patents). Subdivision 4, section 4920, Revised Statutes. a Lemley v. DobsonEvans Co

211

165

310

223

Trade-Mark acts, 1881 and 1905. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_.

369

Trade-mark statutes. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack_.

74

Contract to sell patented article at fixed price void because contrary to general law. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Company and Columbia Graphophone Company__.

344

Contractor not protected in infringement by act of June 25, 1910.
coni Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. Simon___
Contributory infringement by Government not an illegal interference
with rights of patentee. ** Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of

** Mar

353

America v. Simon___.

Correctness of description not material if mark describes like goods of
others. Ex parte Brady----

Costs in equity cases within the discretion of the court.
Meccano Limited

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, appeals from the Commis-
sioner of Patents may be entertained, first, in applications for patents
or reissues twice rejected by Examiner, then by Examiners-in-Chief,
and then the Commissioner, and, second, in interferences where pri-
ority has been awarded. * In re Carvalho_-_.

353

48

d Wagner v.

231

165

Failure by practitioners to observe rules necessary to the orderly and expeditious despatch of business not to be excused except for cogent reasons. *In re Hitchcock___

149

No jurisdiction to entertain appeals in interference cases except from a judgment of priority. *Field et al. v. Colman___

135

D.

Decision of the Commissioner of Patents relative to delay in prosecution of application not reviewable by Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. * In re Carvalho_.

165

Decisions of the Patent Office tribunals unanimous, nothing tending to show error, doubts not permissible. *In re Kohler___

160

Delay in payment of patent fees, condition arising from a state of war.
Ex parte Philipp and Schmidt-.

8

Depositions, costs of, allowed by courts, equity rule 58 cited.
Meccano Limited

Wagner v.

231

Designs, imitation not sufficient, invention must be shown. Ex parte
Kaupmann__

Patentability determined by difference in configuration from other
designs. Ex parte Kaupmann__

To be viewed as a whole, as the effect is optical. Bayley & Sons,
Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co. et al‒‒‒‒‒‒
Determination as to whether suits arising under price-fixing contracts
come under patent law, within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of
appeals. ** Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Com-
pany and Columbia Graphophone Company_
Disclosure of invention must be definite. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v.
Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation__.

d

Must make nature of purported invention clear to persons competent
to understand. * Henggi v. Dallmeyer----
Discretionary action of the Commissioner of Patents not to be controlled
by mandamus. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents__
Double patents, two inventions, a mechanical contrivance and an orna-
mental attachment united therewith, a mechanical patent only obtained,
a design patent may be procured within the two-year period without
violation of rule against double patenting. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v.
Standart Art Glass Co. et al_____.

d

Page.

49

49

258

344

317

198

215

258

E.

Equivalents, test, whether a journeyman in the art would turn from
one element to the other readily, sure of the result. H. Ward Leon-
ard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation____
Exclusive use, security, and protection depend upon the laws of the sev-
eral States. ** United Drag Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company-

317

369

F.

Former decision, rehearing refused. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car
Heating Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents___.

d

Failure to set up earlier patent in answer, in suit for infringement, not
objection to admission as evidence of state of art and aid in construc-
tion of claims. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al____.
Foreign registrant must have agent in this country on whom process may
be served. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack___

d

276

74

316

G.

Government contractor not vested with governmental powers by act of
June 25, 1910. ** William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Com-
pany v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company and Curtis
Marine Turbine Company of the United States___.
Grant of patent prima facie presumption of patentability. Wonder Mfg.
Co. v. Block et al_____

336

d

276

I.

Improvement, device may infringe generic claim and yet be an improve-

ment thereon without inconsistency.

Hewitt Electric Co____.

d

General Electric Co. v. Cooper

261

d

Infringement admitted, extent of, will not be reviewed by appellate
court on appeal from interlocutory injunction, abuse of discretion by
lower court only, will be ascertained. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Not avoided by uniting in one part two elements which still reach the
same result in the same way. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer
Mfg. Co.

d

Page.

276

281

Prior patent admissible as evidence of infringement, even though
only a paper patent, with no showing of use. Wonder Mfg. Co.
v. Block et al.

d

276

Will not be held in combination used by one party differing from that
in original application of other party by the substitution of an
element not an equivalent. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell
Motor Sales Corporation_-_-

Interference, applicant failing to assert rights to claims of patent for
more than a year estopped unless delay shown to have been unavoid-
able. *Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman__.

Claim copied within a year of issuance of patent, refused admission,
soon after, but more than a year after issuance of patent, presented
again in a second application, applicant not estopped to make
claim. Barrett v. Hart_.

Claims of reissued patent copied two months after issuance and more
than two years after original within rule of estoppel, basis of claims
being original patent. *Kane v. Podlesak___
Construction of claims, incorporation of additional figure and sub-
stitute specification.

317

154

62

207

*Ficklen v. Baker_

190

Construction of the issue. *Hendler v. Hansen_

188

Declaration of cannot be controlled by mandamus.

* United States,

ex rel. International Money Machine Company, v. Newton___
Disclosure of invention in British provisional 'specification.
v. Coats and Cameron. Coats and Cameron v. Burt_.
Dissolved, ground of failure of earlier application to disclose the in-
vention, question not to be reviewed on ex parte appeal from de-
cision in earlier application. * In re Creveling___.
Each element appearing in the counts regarded as material to the
invention covered thereby. *Bijur v. Rushmore_
Estoppel, four parties to interference, judgment for fourth party,
afterward patent is issued to third party on different subject-mat-
ter, later first party, copying claims from this patent, cannot be re-
fused these claims on ground of estoppel. * In re Martin_
Judgment on the record. *Elsom v. Bonner___

211

* Burt

131.

145

122

213

120

One party not disclosing subject-matter of interference in application,
priority of invention properly awarded to his opponent. Gammeter
v. Lister

37

Patent and application, right to make claims. * Ficklen v. Baker__ 190
* In re Creveling_

Rule 130 not considered applicable where junior party of three-party
interference questions right of one of the parties to make claims
but not that of the other party. *Elsom v. Bonner and Golde____

116