are omitted in another claim so that the effect and operation of the composition is changed, the invention would be a different one and divisible, but the addition of elements, as an anodyne, to the cure, or of coloring matter, or an anitfreezing element, which do not effect the operative nature of the composition ought not to create opportunity for division. In the above I have endeavored to recapitulate what seems to me to be the proper practice in certain types of cases covering the great majority of questions of division. It is as futile to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules in relation to this subject as it is to decide by rule what is an invention. In the nature of things rules fitted to inventions which are known will not always apply exactly to inventions which are new. This has been well recognized in the decision of the Supreme Court which requires the application of the judgment and discretion of the Commissioner in each case, instead of the application of a dried and cut rule. In the application of that discretion (which is entrusted primarily to the examiner) the interest of the inventor is a primary consideration, and it would seem to be consonant with his interest and with that of the public to lay down. as fundamental, that division should never be required except where there is more than one real invention-nor where the issuance of patents along the line laid down would or might raise a serious question of double patenting or between things of such a light nature as to make the requirement trivial and, further, that where a case of grave injury to the applicant may result by insistence on division, it may well be waived. It is to the public interest that useful inventions be patented and published but it is not to the public interest that indirect extension of monopoly occur by successive issuance of patents, all of which are to parts of the whole invention, and necessary to the use of the invention, and consequent hampering of the right to use effectively the invention of the expired patent. Such conditions should be borne in mind by the Office and avoided so far as possible. RULE 42. This rule relates to questions of practice under division and the decisions relating to these questions have been so fully collected and carefully treated by Mr. W. H. Whitten in paper 55 of Papers read before the Examining Force in 1917 that it is superfluous to go over the ground. One comment only on the last sentence of the Rule, which states that after a final requirement of division the applicant may elect to prosecute, etc. This presupposes that applicant either complies with the requirement or traverses it, giving his reasons for traversing as in other cases of rejection. The examiner may then reconsider with a knowledge of applicant's position and either withdraw, modify, or affirm with the approval of the law examiner. After such affirmance the election may be made and become effective and examination on the elected branch proceed. It not infrequently happens that in response to a first requirement, an election is made without complying with Rule 69 in pointing out the error of the examiner. Such action is not responsive, nor of a kind to avoid abandonment. If the examiner disregarding the incompleteness of the response, proceeds, without knowing the applicant's reasons for non compliance, to make the requirement of division final and acts on the elected branch, it may well happen that, if appeal be subsequently taken on the merits and on division, the applicant's reasons for non compliance with the requirement of division may never be of record except in the appeal brief. No good reason is seen why a full response is not as necessary to a rejection for improper joinder as any other rejection and why a failure to give full response should not lead to a holding of abandonment. RULES 43 AND 44. In the edition of the Rules dated December 1, 1879, Rule 42 reads as follows: When an applicant makes two or more applications relating to the same subject matter of invention, all showing, but only one claiming, the same thing, those not claiming it must contain disclaimers thereof, with references to the application claiming it. In the edition of the Rules of April 18, 1888, Rule 42, above, was abolished, the rules renumbered and present Rules 43, 44 inserted in their present form. In ex parte Long, C. D. 1883, it was held in accordance with long standing practice that "having described, shown and claimed his invention in his patent, he has no right to thereafter file an application for subject matter shown and described in such patent." "Nor has he a right to reserve a portion of his invention and after the grant of a patent claim in a separate application such reserved portion." See, also, ex parte Rohn, C. D. 1883. In Derby, C. D. 1884, it was ruled that for matter shown but not claimed in a patent, a reservation clause coupled with diligence in filing a subsequent application, would overcome the presumption of abandonment. In ex parte Roberts, C. D. 1887, it is pointed out that part of an indivisible invention cannot be saved for future patenting by reservation, but that it is otherwise with reference to a divisible invention if a copending application therefor be made, or if a reservation of the divisible matter be made and the second application filed promptly. In ex parte Blair, March 24, 1888, C. D. 1888, C. Hall held that if the inventions are properly divisible, applicants rights to the one not claimed in the case in question were safe without reservation or if not so he could in any case have a concurrent application, and expressed his opinion that the rule should forbid reservations. Following this in the Rules of April 18, 1888, present Rule 44 was inserted. A reservation cannot save for future application a thing which is indivisible from that patented, nor is it necessary to save a thing which is clearly divisible. It therefore becomes useless and being deterrent and confusing to the public and having no relation to the thing claimed is rightly forbidden. The modern doctrine in respect to dedication of matter disclosed but not claimed in an application is found in ex parte Mullen and Mullen, C. D., 1890.. Ex parte Blair upholds the necessity for cross reference to a concurrent application claiming matter shown and described in the other case but not claimed. Such reference should be explicit, giving date and number, so that persons interested in the patent issued may ascertain by inquiry where the application referred to is and what it contains and claims. Ex parte Finch, C. D. 1884. A mere reference to the number and date of the application is, however, not sufficient-the reference must impart a more or less definite nature of the scope of matter in the application referred to. Ex parte Everitt, C. D. 1889. The cross reference cannot be used to supplement or take the place of a full description of the machine claimed in the case embodying the reference. Ex parte Borgfeldt, C. D. 1889, and ex parte Chadwick, C. D. 1891. The importance of cross references is very great and Rule 43 should be invariably and rigidly observed. The provisions of Rule 45 are for the most part selfexplanatory. The requirement as to the interlineations and erasures is necessary in order that it may be clear that the application as filed, including all changes, has been applied for by the inventor and been declared to be his invention, and the prerequisite oath with reference to the disclosure as interlined taken. OF PERSONAL INTEREST. Resignations of the following assistant examiners within the past two months to take more advantageous positions indicate revival of business and emphasize the need of higher salaries to keep experienced examiners in the corps. Nathan Comstock, 1st Asst. Examiner. A. A. Smith, 2nd Asst. Examiner. Donald H. Sweet, 3rd Asst. Examiner. W. W. Seals, 4th Asst. Examiner, Temp. John W. Garner, 4th Asst. Examiner, Temp. Primary Examiner Loren A. Sadler, formerly in charge of Div. 12, resigned on March 12 on account of impaired health. In this the Office loses a very capable Division Chief, universally liked and respected. Primary Examiner Thurber has in his possession two patents of particular value as keepsakes because they were granted to his grandfather, Hezekiah Thurber, but which are also of great interest because of the notable signatures they bear. The earlier grant was made on May 22, 1828, and is signed by President "J. Q. Adams" and attested by "H. Clay" as Secretary of State. It was certified to as "conformable to law" by "Wm. Wirt," Attorney General of the United States. The patent was for a Machine for Cutting Pegs. The second patent, granted on April 22, 1830, was for a machine for washing clothes. It has a large bold signature of President "Andrew Jackson," attested by "M. Van Buren," Secretary of State. The certificate of the Attorney General is over the carefully written signature of "John. Macpherson Berrien." The patent grants are in manuscript on heavy parchment. They were issued under the old laws and have no concluding claims. The first patent is without a drawing, but the second has a drawing made by C. M. Keller, one of the Patent Office draftsmen. The single figure of the drawing is neatly lettered and through the use of several tones and colors of water-color wash is given an artistic finish not found in the drawings of the present day. An endorsement on each of the patents is reminiscent of the Patent Office fire of December 15, 1836, it setting forth that the patent was "Received 5 August, 1837, and recorded anew in this Office. Henry Ellsworth, Commis-sioner of Patents." Former First Assistant Examiner Charles W. Powers resigned from the Office March 15th and his death from complications following influenza occurred a few days later. Mr. Powers was appointed from Vermont Oct. 1, 1908 and was promoted through the grades, reaching that of First Assistant, Oct. 16, 1917. Except for some months in 1914 when he was in the Classification Division, and his last few months' service in Division 16, he was connected with Div. 4. He was always highly esteemed as most efficient and capable, the character of his work exciting attention for its thoroughness and quality. A SPECIFICATION OF APPRECIATION. To all Whom It May Concern:— Be it known that I, Phil J. Nawn, a citizen of the United States, residing at Milwaukee, in the County of Milwaukee, and State of Wisconsin, have discovered a new |