Journal OF THE Patent Office Society Published monthly by the Patent Office Society Office of Publication 3928 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C. Subscription $2.50 a year Single copy 25 cents EDITORIAL BOARD E. C. Reynolds, Chairman and Editor-in-chief. H. Keneipp, Case editor. E. R. Cole M. L. Whitney, Business Manager (Room 182, U. S. Patent Office.) 3928 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C. N. E. Eccleston, Circulation. Entered as second class matter, September 17, 1918, at the post office at Washington. D. C., under the act of March 3, 1879. Publication of signed articles in this journal is not to be understood as an adoption by the Patent Office Society of the views expressed therein. The editors are glad to have pertinent articles submitted. VOL. VIII. September, 1925. No. 1. COMMENT. A gain of 652 was made during July in spite of the fact that a considerable number of examiners and assistants were absent on leave. The oldest date for the Office on Aug. 1, was under 6 months. There were 49 divisions under 5 months on new cases; 35 under 4 months; 15 under 3 months and 2 under 2 months. Commerce Publications. The editor has been informed that the paragraph under this heading in the July Journal was in error in certain respects. No manual entitled "Trading Under the Laws of Europe" has been published, although a number of bulletins have been issued giving information on the commercial law of various countries. The manual for Brazil is out of print, but the manual for Cuba can be obtained from the Government Printing Office at $.10 per copy. Ethics. It is proposed to add to the code of ethics of the American Bar Association a number of additional canons pertaining to patent practice. The code already adopted by the Cleveland and Chicago Patent Bar Associations was taken as a basis and certain additions are proposed by the committee. The text of the canons is given elsewhere in this issue, the proposed additions being in italics. Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. A number of amendments have been proposed for consideration at the meeting at the Hague on Oct. 8, 1925. A few of the more important ones are given below. Article 2 now reads as follows, "The subjects or citizens of each of the contracting countries shall enjoy in all the other countries of the Union, with regard to patents of invention, models of utility, industrial designs or models, trade-marks, trade names, the statements of place of origin, suppression of unfair competition, the advantages which the respective laws now grant or may hereafter grant to the citizens of that country. Consequently, they shall have the same protection as the latter and the same legal remedies against any infringements of their rights, provided they comply with the formalities and requirements imposed by the national laws of each state upon its own citizens. Any obligation of domicile or of establishment in the country where the protection is claimed shall not be imposed on members of the Union." The United States proposes that the words in the second sentence, "imposed by the national laws of each State upon its own citizens," be replaced by the words, "required by the national laws of each country," and that there be added to Article 2 a paragraph reading as follows, "It is agreed, however, that each of the contracting countries reserve the right to impose upon the industrial property of citizens of any of the other countries any or all conditions imposed upon the industrial properties of its citizens by such other country." France proposes to rephrase the first sentence of the paragraph as follows, "The subjects or citizens of each contracting country will enjoy in all the other countries of the Union, in matters of industrial property, benefits which the respective laws now grant or shall hereafter grant to citizens of that country, all this without prejudice to the rights especially provided by the present convention." Article 4 relates to the priority which may be given an applicant in one country by reason of a previous application filed in another country. Spain proposes to add,— "The country of origin is the one where the first application is filed. The right of priority can only be claimed on the ground of the application filed in the country of origin." The United States proposes a new paragraph as follows, "The grant of priority shall not reduce the term of the patent." France proposes two new paragraphs as follows, "No country of the Union can reject an application for patent on the ground that it contains a claim of multiple priorities, unless their number exceeds four, on condition, however, that there is unity of invention according to the meaning of the law of the country. Should examination reveal that the application is divisible the applicant may divide it while keeping as the date of each divisional application that of the first filing, and the benefit of the priority. Priority can not be refused for the reason that certain elements of the invention for which priority is claimed are not found in the claims presented in the application of the country of origin, provided that these elements are clearly defined in the description." EDWARD RECTOR. As we go to press, notice is received of the sudden death on Aug. 1st of Edward Rector of the firm of Rector, Hibben, Davis and Macauley of Chicago. |