Diligence, delay in receiving material. *Bettendorf v. McKeen.... Page. 173 116 Division of application, requirement for, not to ignore one element of claims. 84 E. Employer and employee: Main plan by employer, suggestions by employee, Moody v. Colby.... Equivalents, not restricted to named elements in pioneer patents unless so Rulings of trial court on objections. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. 327 Sufficiency of objections, waiver. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. 327 F. First and original inventor. *Hopkins v. Peters and Dement.. I. 116 93 Identity of invention. Patents, effect of earlier on later. d Century Electric Anticipation. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City Woolen Mills.... 267 236 267 Combination not infringed by mere purchase of elements. **Seim and 361 Equivalents, application of doctrine of, to patents for combinations. 327 357 Not transferable to party who buys one element only used in manufac- 357 Manufacture immune from suit by reason of prior decision, purchaser of 366 Patent for improvement in existing devices makes small step in the art 294 Presumption as to earlier and later patents. d Century Electric Co. v. 267 Trade-Marks registered under the ten-years clause. **Thaddeus Davids 367 Interference: Applicant and patentee. Morgan v. Taylor v. Hanson ............... 90 29 Interference-Continued. Assignee controlling two applications estopped from introducing sec- ond after final decision. Frickey v. Ogden..... Construction of issue, right to make claim. *Barcley v. Schuler.... Device not tested by actual use not reduction to practice. *Barcley v. Estoppel by reason of long delay. Shreeve v. Grissinger. Existence of determined under the statute by the Commissioner, not sub- Foreign application, benefit of. Steel and Steel v. Myers..... Inventor first reducing invention to practice entitled to patent, even Motion by patentee to dissolve on ground that issue is not patentable if Patent granted during pendency of application, claims copied for inter- Priority awarded to opponent where the other party could not make claim. Priority, question of res adjudicata. *Cross v. Rusby. duction to practice. Second Interference. Rusby v. Cross. Trade-marks, priority of adoption and use properly awarded, mark not Two parties, assignee of one not to bring in third party after final decision. 19 Interrogatories, penalty under Equity Rule 58 for failure to answer. Whit- 34 153 J. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Patents: Mandamus will not lie to direct the manner of exercising. *United States, 186 Jurisdiction of the United States Courts: Matters arising under Trade-Mark statutes under jurisdiction of Federal 223 L. Labels, registration not to be refused because feature is usable as trade-mark. 67 Mandamus: M. Cannot take the place of an appeal or writ of error. *United States, ex rel. To direct Commissioner of Patents as to manner of exercising jurisdiction Manufacture: Page. 186 194 186 An article used in a method of doing business may be so classed under the 216 The term as used in patent law defined. d Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope. 216 Construction of Sherman Act. **Straus and Straus v. American Publish- 347 Copyrighted books, combination to maintain prices of. **Straus and 347 Motion for further proceedings. *Schmidt v. Tait.. 214 Particular patents, construction of: P. d Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co........ d Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co. et al....... Former decision construed. Ex parte Mumford... 267 246 84 No invention substituting one known material for another to accomplish a 142 Presumed in device disclosing mechanical skill only, but producing a 113 Patents: Number that may be obtained. d Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse 267 285 Scope of, features not claimed. d Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg. Co. Presumption, earlier and later patents. d Century Electric Co. v. Westing- Prints and labels, Act of 1874 not repealed by Act of 1909. ‡In re Prints and *Lorimer and Lorimer and Western Electric Company v. Keith, Erick- son, and Erickson and Lundquist................ 202 Conception by one employee, reduction to practice by another. Thomas Decision of the Commissioner of Patents affirmed. *Warrington v. Combs. 189 Inventor not entitled to priority where he conceals invention till another Only question in issue, patentability not considered. *Johnson v. Martin.. 162 Rusby v. Cross.... ཚ ཙ 170 64 *Sutton, Steele, and Steele v. Wentworth.... 210 Second interference after limit of appeal. *Sutton, Steele, and Steele v. 210 Proceedings in the Patent Office, effect of. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. 236 Process, unpatentable where it produces only a combination of known results. 113 Process and apparatus, separate patents for. d Century Electric Co. v. West- 267 Prosecution of application. Assignee of entire interest may exclude inventor, 86 Public-use proceedings, Commissioner of Patents has jurisdiction to order. R. 186 Reduction to practice, what constitutes. *Stewart v. Thomas.. 180 Claims amended in view of, no further explanation necessary. Ex parte Combination of, when claims should be rejected. Ex parte McCollum.... Claims limited by specific structure of original patent. d Grand Rapids 294 Not to be enlarged by including matter once intentionally omitted. 294 Deliberate acts of attorney in prosecution of application not grounds for. 294 61 Res Adjudicata. Judgment, effect of as estoppel against second action on same 97 72367°-15- Right to patent. Independent inventions, protection of each. dOttumwa Page. 327 Rules of the Patent Office as to construction, phrase having fixed meaning 310 S. Signature of application. Title as full name. Ex parte Karl, Prinz zu Löwen- 89 Suits for infringement, motion to strike out evidence. d Horton Mfg Co. v. White 285 T. Terminology. The word "aggregation" defined. d Krell Auto Grand Piano Testimony: Abandonment, request for renewal prima facie evidence against. *Ewing, 246 127 111 127 205 353 223 367 Application to register name of individual, firm, etc., opposition statutory 146 Cancelation of trade-mark registration. Whiting-Adams Co. v. Rubber and 34 Section 13, Trade-Mark Act, 1905, applicable to registration under 161 107 Class of words which may be registered. Ex parte Boyce, Wheeler & Boyce 25 Section 5, Trade-Mark Statutes. *In re Gorham Manufacturing Com- 103 Section 12, Trade-Mark Act. 1905. *Ewing, Commissioner of Patents, 205 Sections 128 and 297, Judicial Code. **Street and Smith v. The Atlas 353 Trade-Mark Act, 1905. **Street and Smith v. The Atlas Manufacturing 353 Definition of the word "Class" as used in statute. *H. Wolf & Sons v. Lord 176 English hall-marks and insignia of Great Britain forbidden registration by 103 |