the British patent, for instance, has not been sealed and unless the grant of the patent is noted in the "Official Journal" before referred to, the case should be passed to issue (Commissioner's Order No. 1226, Sept. 6, 1898). This order was issued under the old seven months rule, but the same practice prevails under the present law, allowing an interval of twelve months between the filing of the domestic application and the filing date of the foreign application.

To hold up such a case, if the applicant has planned to have his foreign patent issue on a certain day, might result in the issue of his foreign patent which would then be a bar.

It is sometimes important to decide the effective filing date of a British application and the printed specifications of British patents take so many different forms that it is deemed advisable to give them some consideration.

Under Section 16 of the Patents and Designs Act, several provisional specifications, if they cover cognate inventions, or modifications, may be consolidated by filing a single complete specification to cover the same. The date of a patent granted on such an application is the date of the earliest of such provisional specifications but in considering the validity thereof and for the purpose of the act with respect to oppositions to the grant of a patent, the Court or Comptroller shall have regard to the respective dates of the provisional specifications relating to the several matters claimed therein.

Also, under Section 6, sub 2 and 3, where there is a departure in the complete specification from the invention disclosed in the provisional, the provisional specification may be canceled, or where there is matter common to the two applications, the comptroller may allow the original application to proceed so far as the invention included both in the provisional and the complete specifications is concerned, and treat the claim for the additional invention included in the complete specification as an application for that invention made on the date at which the complete specification was left.

In the case of In re Swinburne, C. D. 1902, p. 537, it was held that, for purposes of Section 4887, Rev. Statutes,

the date of an English application was the date of filing of the provisional specification. Under the English law at that time, however, no departure was allowed in the complete specification from the invention disclosed in the provisional. Any departure would render the patent void.

Ex parte Smith, C. D. 1898, p. 275.

Hence, In re Swinburne should be applied in the light of British law as it now stands, and it has been held that where the provisional specification was canceled under provisions of the act, the date of the British application for purposes of Section 4887 is the date of the complete specification.

Ex parte Hayes, 209 O. G., p. 317.

When there has been a consolidation of provisional specifications, as before mentioned, the date of the application for the purposes of Section 4887 is the date of the earliest provisional specification disclosing the invention.

Where there is a departure in the complete specification from the invention disclosed in the provisional, and the provisional has not been canceled, the controlling date of the application for the new matter is the date of the complete specification.

Some British patents, when the complete specification involves a departure from the invention disclosed in the provisional, have a peculiar heading, in which two dates are given. The patent granted in such a case is given the old serial number, but redated to indicate the filing. date of the complete specification. For instance, in the provisional specification filed July 12, 1912, and numbered 16334, the complete specification was filed February 12, 1913, and the patent redated.

The heading on the drawing appears:

A. D. 1913, Feb. 12, No. 163342-the exponent showing that the provisional specification was filed in 1912.

The complete specification is found in the bound volume for 1912.

Also, where the application is divided the heading

assumes a similar character. For instance, the application 19537 of 1912 was filed August 26, 1912, and divided, the parent application going to patent as No. 19537 of 1912. The divisional application became patent No. 5020 of 1913, and bore this heading:

A. D. 1912-Aug. 26, No. 5020.

The exponent in the case indicates the date of filing of the divisional application. The effective filing date of the application would appear, however, to be August 26, 1912.

When British applications are abandoned they are usually not published and knowledge of their abandonment may be obtained by inspection of the Official Journal.

The only apparent exception to this is where an applicant has claimed the filing date of the application in a foreign country under the convention. These applications are open to public inspection twelve months after the filing of the provisional specification, whether the complete specifications are accepted or not. If they become abandoned, they are printed and published about fifteen months after the filing of the application.

FOREIGN APPLICATION AS A CONSTRUCTIVE REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.

It may sometimes occur that an applicant will claim, under Section 4887, as a constructive reduction to practice, in order to overcome a reference, or for some other reason the filing of an an application in a foreign country, which application has become abandoned. It would seem, under the statute, that the United States application should have the same effect as if it were filed in this country on the same date, that the foreign application was filed and the abandonment of the foreign application would be immaterial. The ques

tion of abandonment does not enter into the matter at all.

Metallurgic Co. vs. Whitman, C. D., 1910, p. 405.

Whitman vs. Hearne, C. D., 1910, p.

Where F. filed an application in the German Patent Office on June 23, 1905, and on October 28, 1905, an amended application was filed, accompanied by drawings, which was a complete description of the invention embraced in the issue, and was not a departure from the original application, and a complete application was filed in this country on June 19, 1906, held, that F. is entitled to the date of his amendment (October 28, 1905), as the date of his constructive reduction to practice.

Bissel vs. Fottinger, 212 O. G., 689, Court of Appeals, D. C.

When there is a lapse of more than twelve months between the filing dates of the domestic and foreign applications, the United States applicant can not get the benefit of the filing date of his foreign application. Muller vs. Lauber, C. D., 1903, p. 387.

PROOF OF FOREIGN APPLICATION.

But no benefit can be secued by the filing of a foreign application by a mere allegation to that effect. Such applications must be proved, though proof need not be given until some occasion for it arises, Ex parte Pauling, 1905, C. D., 131. Where an applicant claims the benefit of the filing of an application in a foreign country for the purpose of overcoming a reference, his affidavit, filed under the provisions of Rule 75, should be accompanied by a copy of the original foreign application, certified to by the patent Office of the country in which it was filed, and if it is not in the English language, a sworn translation, made by the official translator of this Office. If the application was not made by the inventor himself, applicant's affidavit should also state that the application in the foreign country was filed for his benefit, and that such a procedure is permitted in the foreign country.

Ex parte Barthels, C. D., 1912, 171.

Translations certified by a consular or diplomatic officer of the United States have always been accepted.

A divisional application takes the date of the patent application in so far as a previous foreign patent under Section 4887 is concerned.

Ex parte Scott, 1901, C. D., 42.

The same is true of an application which is a continuation of an earlier United States application, the latter being filed within the statutory period of twelve months.

Struble vs. Young, C. D., 1906, p. 37.

In one case, the Commissioner said that while it had never been decided by the courts whether a patent granted in this country for an invention previously made the subject of a German Gebrauchsmuster was limited by the term of the latter, the date of the Gebrauchsmuster should be given in the specification, the question of limitation being left to the courts.

Ex parte Gillie, C. D., 1898, p. 148.

The Board of Examiners-in-Chief has held however that a Gebrauchsmuster was a patent within the meaning of Section 4887, and that the Gebrauchsmuster application was an application for a patent within the meaning of this section.

Munster vs. White, Appeal No. 1021, Interference 25665.

This is contrary to the decision in Steiner vs. Schwarz, 148 Fed., 868.. The information presented to the court in that case as to the character of a Gebrauchsmuster patent does not, however, appear to have been complete.

A foreign application fi ed before the adherence of the foreign country to the convention is of no avail under Section 4887, as a constructive reduction to practice.

Winter vs. Latour, C. D., 1910, p. 408.

COMPLETE APPLICATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

In Ex parte Sassin, C. D., 1906, p. 205, where the preparation, execution and filing of an application by an attorney were authorized by a power filed with the