It is interesting to know how the patentees came to cancel specific claims to get broad claims.

66* *

After a prolonged prosecution of their case, the Hammonds copied ten claims from a patent to Farries 899,446, granted by another division of the Office on an application filed subsequently to that of the Hammonds, for substantially the same subject matter. The copied claims were much broader in scope than those in the Hammonds' case. The Hammonds did not state the origin of the claims nor did they ask for an interference. After a number of actions, rejecting all claims in the case on art and other grounds, the Hammonds disclosed the source of the copied claims and requested an interference. After several more actions, the case was transferred to the division from which the Farries patent issued. In view of the voluminous record embracing twenty papers, the examiner in charge of the case requested a clean copy of all claims, deferring action on the merits. This request was ignored by the Hammonds who insisted on a final ruling as to interference. The examiner responded: so far no claims stand allowed or have apparently been considered patentable by the examiner who previously had charge of the case. As there are no allowable claims, it is not, of course, in condition for interference with the patent to Farries referred to It does not appear to the examiner that the furnishing of a rewritten copy of the claims would work a hardship on applicant. If, however, applicant wishes only claims 20 to 29 considered in the case, he should cancel claims 1 to 19 when an action on the merits of the case will be made. Action on the merits is deferred until one or the other of the above requirements has been complied with". The Hammonds then canceled claims 1 to 19 and added a few more claims along the same lines as Farries' claims, stating that they do not wish to be understood as acquiescing in the pertinence of the references cited. After several more actions, their case was placed in condition for allowance and the interference declared, (twenty-eight months after the grant of the Farries' patent and twenty

......

one months after the Hammonds copied the claims). The Hammonds won the interference and their patent issued.

In an infringement suit brought by the owner of the Hammonds patent, the broad claims were found to be anticipated by the prior art. A disclaimer was filed to limit the claims so as to be substantially of the same scope as the claims once canceled. The Court held that this could not be done and dismissed the bill.

This ruling is analogous to and in conformity with the decisions relating to reissue patents where a patentee is not allowed to obtain claims once deliberately canceled. and without inadvertence, accident, or mistake. The conditions laid down for disclaimers under Section 4917, closely follow those of Section 4916 for reissues.

Brief Notes.

A. B.

JOCKMUS v. W. W. GALE & CO., INC. 295 Fed. 208. Patent 114,299 to Louis Severus for electric light fixture held valid and infringed by defendant as contributory infringer.

SCHEY v. TURI et al. 294 Fed. 679, Suit for infringement patent 902,724, for apparatus for broiling meats. From an order denying a preliminary injunction, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and injunction granted.

HENRY L. HUGHES CO. v. MONARCH BRUSH CO. 294 Fed. 674. Alexander patent 1,364,971, for a brush pad, held void for lack of invention, in view of the prior art and prior use.

OF GENERAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

Mr. Herbert S. Mansfield, a third assistant examiner, resigned April 17, 1924. Mr. Mansfield was assigned to Division 42 upon his appointment on September 14, 1922, where he has been examining Electrical Conduits and Housings and Electric Bells.

Mr. Marvin A. Shoultes, a fourth assistant examiner in Division 39, resigned April 30, 1924. Mr. Shoultes, who was appointed from New Jersey on Sept. 1, 1923, has been examining Valves in Division 39. He dislikes the confinement of Office life and intends to go into the poultry business.

Mr. B. H. Carpenter, a second assistant in Division 22, resigned May 15, 1924. Mr. Carpenter, who was appointed Sept. 15, 1918 from Ohio, has been examining Class 244, Aeronautics.

Mr. J. P. Burns, a third assistant examiner in Div. 1, resigned May 11th. Mr. Burns, who was appointed from Montana on August 17, 1920, has been examining the class of Closure Operators. He is a member of the bar, having graduated from George Washington University, and he is leaving to associate himself with the firm of Bacon & Thomas of this city.

Mr. William I. Mushake, a fourth assistant examiner appointed September 5, 1923 from the District of Columbia, resigned May 20th. Mr. Mushake has been examining Class 4 in Division 43.

George W. Mankey, former second Assistant Examiner in Division 20, died suddenly April 5, 1924 at Fairhaven. Massachusetts. Mr. Mankey was born July 19, 1860 at Apple River, Illinois. He was appointed to the War Department in 1890 from Massachusetts and entered the

Patent Office May 14, 1906. He retired on account of disability May 31, 1923. His long service in this Office extended his acquaintance to many friends who are grieved to learn of his death.

PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY DANCE.

The annual Spring dance of the Patent Office Society was held Saturday April 26 in the ball room of the Shoreham Hotel.

Elegant surroundings, entrancing music and satisfying refreshments contributed to make the evening an enjoyable one. There was a good attendance and all present appeared to be happy and gay of spirit. The Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners and their wives were present and shared in the dancing and festivities of the evening.

All reports were favorable and Mr. R. J. Eisinger, Chairman of the Social Committee, and his lieutenants on the committee are deserving of much credit for the manner in which their excellent arrangements were carried out. It is within the plans of the Committee to have outing parties during the summer including a steamer excursion to Fort Washington similar to the one had last year, which included such a variety of attractions and afforded everyone present there such an exceptionally good time.

JOHN INGALLS BROWN.

Mr. Brown was born at Philadelphia, Penn., Feb. 14, 1852. He returned with his parents from Philadelphia, where they lived for a few years. to their former home in Bangor, Maine, where he spent his childhood and attended the public schools. He also attended Hampden Academy; the Eastern Conference Seminary; Bucksport, Maine, and Maine Wesleyan Seminary, Kent's Hill,

Maine; graduating in 1874. He was Secretary to Congressman (later Governor) Plaisted of Maine 1875 and 1876. Taught school in Hampden, Maine three winter terms and read law in the Office of Governor Plaisted. In 1881 received an appointment in the Census Bureau and was frequently detailed for special work in various sections of the country; was one of three assigned to aid Professor Woodward of the Missouri University in retaking the 1880 Census of St. Louis, Mo.

He received the degree of L. L. B. from the National University Law School in 1884 and was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Coumbia the

same year.

Mr. Brown resigned from the Census Bureau in 1883 and was appointed a Fourth Assistant Examiner in the Patent Office the same year. During his service as assistant examiner he was employed in Divisions 4, 19 and the Classification Division; was appointed Primary Examiner July 1, 1908, and placed in charge of Division 41.

He is a member of all branches of the I. O. O. F. in the District of Columbia and served the Order as Grand Representative to the Sovereign Grand Lodge for a period of six years (three terms).

He is a member of the District of Columbia Society Sons American Revolution.

He has been president of the Interior Department Beneficial Association since 1907; also was an active, energetic member of the Interior Department Home Club. He was married Feb. 14, 1883 to Nettie Alden West of Bath, Maine.

ADDIS D. MERRITT,

Addis D. Merritt, was born in Salem, Illinois. He was educated in the public schools of his native town, Illinois College, and Georgetown University. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Entered the Patent Office in 1885, served as Assistant Examiner in divisions 14, 2, 32 and 24, and was made a Principal Examiner in June 1908. He is in charge of Division 4.