d Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung v. The Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Company...

344

U.

*United States ex rel. Dunkley Company and Dunkley v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents....

186

*United States ex rel. Trussed Concrete Steel Company v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents.

194

W.

Wahrmann. Ex parte....

67

*Waid. Freeman v..

196

*Warrington v. Combs. Brantingham v. Combs. Brantingham v. Combs et al...

189

d White Lily Mfg. Co. Horton Mfg. Co. v..

*Wolf & Sons, H. v. Lord & Taylor..

Wood. Barber v.....

d Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. Century Electric Co. v........

Whiting-Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming Co.

**Woodward Company, The, v. Hùrd et al..

*Woven Steel Hose & Rubber Company v. Keasbey & Mattison Company...

Y.

Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., The. Ex parte............

267

285

34

176

1

366

102

81

SUBJECT MATTER INDEX.

A.

[Decisions of the Examiners-in-Chief are indicated by parallel lines (1), the opinion of the Attorney
General by a double dagger (†), decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by
one star (*), of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by the letter (d), and of the Supreme Court
of the United States by two stars (**).]

Abandoned experiments:

Page.

Invention made, tested, then thrown aside until manufactured by oppo-
nent. Brown v. Campbell......

37

Though first to conceive, because lacking in diligence not entitled to pri-
ority. Brenizer v. Robinson....

42

Abandonment of invention:

Conditions which constitute bar to patent under section 4886 also bar
under section 4897. ||Barber v. Wood.....
Withholding invention from market knowing rival to be in field, neglecting
to renew forfeited application, or to reassert claim for patent until near
end of time allowed by law amounts to. ||Barber v. Wood...
Affidavits filed while case was on appeal to the Commissioner and not considered
by him will not be considered by the court. *In re Merrill..........
Anticipation:

1

1

113

All elements should be found in same description or machine where they
attain the same results by same means. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co.
v. Christy Box Car Loader Co..

327

Pending applications by patentee. d Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg.
Co......

Several applications, which subsequently become patents, pending at the
same time, each describing inventions claimed in the others, none of the
applications claiming inventions claimed in any of the others-applica-
tions and patents cannot be used to anticipate each other. d Century
Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co......

285

267

Testimony requisite to establish. dOttumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy
Box Car Loader Co........

327

Appeal and error, matters reviewable under. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co.
v. Christy Box Car Loader Co.......

327

Appeals, lie from decisions not from reasons for. S. Galle & Company v. West-
ern Grocer Company.

32

Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, time for filing record
extended by Commissioner only before expiration of limit of time. *Schmidt
v. Tait..

Article of manufacture, what is required for patentability. *In re McNeil..........
Assignment, entire interest carries right to prosecute to exclusion of inventor,
even if there be no request to issue patent to assignee. Ex parte Hill and
Hill..

214

141

86

IX

C.

Claims:

Page.

Acquiescence in rejection of as estoppel. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co.
v. Christy Box Car Loader Co.....

327

Method of construing. d Jones v. Evans...

262

Process application anticipated by patent for apparatus which performs the
process

Ex parte Chapman..

*In re Chapman...

Combination, old elements, new result, protection of by patent. d Ottumwa
Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co....
Commissioner of Patents:

Appeal to from rejection of claims recommended by the Examiners-in-
Chief. Ex parte Dimm......

57

Judgment not controlled by mandamus because in conflict with decree of
court. *United States ex rel. Trussed Concrete Steel Company v.
Ewing, Commissioner of Patents.....

Commerce, statutory provisions, validity of Trade-Mark Acts. d Rossmann v.
Garnier...

194

223

Concealment of invention, right to patent forfeited because of:

Anticipation and disclosure. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City
Woolen Mills.......

236

Broad and narrow claims, suit brought on broad claim, courts cannot con-
strue into broad claim limitations not therein expressed. d National
Tube Co. v. Mark et al.....

310

Estoppel by proceedings in Patent Office. d National Tube Co. v. Mark
et al..

310

Limitation of. Ex parte Pease...

48

Phrase "substantially as described," not limitation to exact mechanism.
d National Tube Co. v. Mark et al....

310

Reading limitations into. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City Woolen
Mills.

236

Substitution of a certain form of joining metal edges for another, in view of
the state of the art, not invention. *In re Hogan........

Construction of copyright act. **Straus and Straus v. American Publishers' As-
sociation et al..........

347

Construction of copyright acts, 1874 and 1909. ‡In re Prints and Labels.............
Construction of patents:

95

Claims referring to fuller description of an element in specification and
drawing limited to such element as there described. dOttumwa Box Car
Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co...........

327

Construction of patents-Continued.

Page.

Demurrer, determination of validity. d Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of
America v. Story & Clark Co. et al.....

246

Specification and claims must be read and construed together. d Ottumwa
Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co...........
Construction of Equity Rule 58. Whiting-Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid
Harness Trimming Co....

327

34

Construction of Rule 40. Ex parte Karl, Prinz zu Löwenstein...
Construction of section 4886 Revised Statutes. d Cincinnati Traction Com-
pany v. Pope......

Section 4887 Revised Statutes. Ex parte Hayes....

Sections 4894 and 4897, Revised Statutes. Henderson and Cantley v.
Kindervater........

89

216

93

61

Section 4897 Revised Statutes. Barber v. Wood....
Construction of specifications and patents:

1

Certain claims invalid in view of the state of the art, and certain claims
infringed. *Comptograph Company v. Adder Machine Company.......
Like other contracts, to be considered as a whole, intention of parties
having been ascertained should prevail. d Century Electric Co. v. West-
inghouse Electric & Mfg. Co......

153

267

Not anticipated, discloses invention and is held infringed. d Cincinnati
Traction Co. v. Pope.

216

Reissue void in so far as claims are broadened to cover matter not covered
by original patent, and so limited to specific structure of original not
infringed. d Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Baker et al..
Scope to be ascertained from entire instrument. d Horton Mfg. Co. v.
White Lily Mfg. Co......

294

285

Construction of Trade-Mark Statutes. d Rossmann v. Garnier..
Continuation of application, earlier and later, different specific forms, common
broad invention, earlier application abandoned, later continuation as to
broad invention. *Lorimer and Lorimer and Western Electric Company,
assignee, v. Keith, Erickson, and Erickson and Lundquist, et al....
Copyright, rights conferred by. **Straus and Straus v. American Publishers'
Association et al.

223

202

347

Court of Appeals. Questions certified not apposite to facts stated in certificate
not to be answered, but certificate dismissed. **Seim and Reissig v.
Hurd et al...

361

D.

Decisions of the Patent Office. Review of, by the Courts. d Grand Rapids
Show Case Co. v. Baker et al.....

294

Delay in filing application. Uncorroborated testimony of applicant as to finan-
cial inability insufficient excuse for lack of diligence. *Shields v. Lees............
Design. Patent for whole article no bar to patent for a part. Ex parte San-
ford..

111

69

Differentiation of claims, necessity for proper construction and effect. d Wm.
B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City Woolen Mills.....

236