Lapas attēli

and must continue for a series of years. In Ransom v. New York,' Judge Hall placed no such limitation as the last of these upon the doctrine, and if he hinted at the first of them he hinted but vaguely. In Bell v. Daniels,' Judge LEAVITT said that it would require a strong case to prove abandonment of a patent actually granted. In Williams v. Railroad Co.,' Judge WALLACE said: “Neither does mere delay or acquiescence establish an abandonment or dedication of the patent. There must be an acquiescence in the appropriation of the right, of such a character as reasonably to induce the belief that the owner intended to relinquish it to the public use.” The opinions cited in this section, şo far as they disagree with the statutes and decisions cited in the last, do not agree in that disagreement, and they seem insufficient to outweigh, or even to modify, the doctrine set forth in that section.

$ 108. Questions relevant to actual or to constructive abandonment of inventions are questions of fact;' and every reasonable doubt relevant to any such question should be solved in favor of the patent, for the law does not favor forfeiture.

1 Ransom o. New York, 1 Fisher, 273, 1856.

? Bell 0. Daniels, 1 Bond, 219, 1858.

3 Williams v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co. 4 Bann. & Ard. 441. 1879.

* Battin o. Taggert, 17 Howard, 84,

1854; Kendall 0. Winsor, 21 How. ard, 330, 1858.

5 Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatch. 238, 1851; McCormick o. Seymour, 2 Blatch. 256, 1851 ; Birdsall 0. McDonald, 1 Bann. & Ard. 165, 1874; Comstock v. Sandusky Seat Co. 3 Bann. & Ard. 188, 1878.



109. Constituents of applications

for patents. 110. The petition. 111. Constituents of specifications. 112. The preamble. 113. The general statement of the

invention. 114. The description of the draw.

ings. 115. The detailed description of the

invention. 116. The claim or claims. 117. Claims in machine patents. 118. Claims in patents for manufact


119. Claims in patents for composi

tions of matters. 120. Claims in process patents. 1204. Claims in design patents. 121. The signatures. 122. The form of the oath. 123. The constituents of the oath. 124. Affirmations. 125. The Patent Office fees. 126. Drawings. 127. Models. 128. Specimens of compositions of

matter. 129. Dates of applications. 130. The examination by the Patent


131. Notification of rejection. 132. Appeals. 133. Appeals to the Supreme Court

of the District of Columbia. 134. Bills in equity to compel the

Commissioner to grant patents. 135. Amendment of applications. 136. The foundation of the right of

amendment. 137. When an applicant may amend. 138. How an applicant may amend. 139. When an applicant must amend. 140. Interferences. 141. Number of interferences. 142. Decision on interference is not

conclusive. 143. Caveats. 144. No appeal from the Commis

sioner in interference cases; but

relief by bill in equity. 145. Abandonment of applications. 146. Constructive abandonment of

applications. 147. Constructive abandonment of

application working constructive abandonment of inven

tion. 148. Effect of Commissioner's de.

cision on questions relevant to applications.


$ 109. An application for a patent consists of the following transactions. The deposit in the Patent Office of a written petition to the Commissioner of Patents; the like deposit of a written specification of the invention; the making of an oath; the payment of the Patent Office fee; and in some cases the deposit of a drawing; and in some cases the deposit of a model; and in some other cases the deposit of specimens.' Applications, and proceedings on applications, are primarily governed by the provisions of the Revised Statutes. Where those provisions do not cover a particular point, that point is governed by the rules of the Patent Office.' Every such rule, unless it is inconsistent with law, is as authoritative as the Revised Statutes themselves.

$ 110. The petition is a communication signed by the applicant and addressed to the Commissioner of Patents, stating the name and residence of the petitioner, and requesting the grant of a patent for the invention therein designated by name and by a reference to the specification for a full disclosure thereof." The petition must be the petition of the inventor, and not of an assignee of the inventor, though it may properly request that the patent, when granted, shall be granted to an assignee;' and it must so request in order to induce the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to order the Commissioner to issue a patent the right to which has been assigned. If, however, the inventor dies before the patent is granted, the petition may be made and signed by his executor or administrator.'

$ 111. The specification properly consists of seven parts. 1. The preamble, giving the name and residence of the applicant, the title of the invention, and the name of any foreign country from which he or his assigns may have received a foreign patent for the same invention, and other particulars connected therewith. 2. A general statement of the nature and object of the invention. 3. A brief

[ocr errors]

Revised Statutes, Sections 4888, 4889, 4890, 4891, 4892, 4893; Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office, revised April 18, 1888, Rule 30.

? Revised Statutes, Section 483.

3 United States v. Commissioner of Patents, 22 Off. Gaz, 1365, 1882.

4 Patent Office Rule 33.

5 Revised Statutes, Section 4895; Patent Act, of March 3, 1837, Section 6.

6 Runstetler 0. Atkinson, MacArthur & Mackey, 382, 1883.

? Revised Statutes, Section 4896; Patent Act of April 17, 1800, Sec. 2,


description of the drawings, if drawings are made, showing what each view represents. 4. A detailed description of the invention, explaining fully its construction and mode of operation, if it is a thing, or the manner of performing it, if it is a process. 5. The claim or claims. 6. The signature of the inventor. 7. The signatures of two witnesses.'

$ 112. The preamble states the name and residence of the inventor, and the title of the invention, in order to connect the specification with the petition; and it states the particulars of foreign patents previously granted for the same invention, in order to inform the Commissioner whether he is to grant a patent for seventeen years, or whether, in pursuance of Section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, he is to so limit the patent, that it will purport to expire at the same time with some foreign patent for the same invention. There is no statute which makes it the duty of the applicant to furnish the Commissioner with information on that subject. If he omits to do so, and if the Commissioner ascertains the facts elsewhere, and limits the term of the patent accordingly, then every purpose is answered that would have been answered if the applicant had stated the facts in his application. The rules of the Patent Office, however, do require the applicant to mention such a foreign patent, if any exists ;' and in the absence of such mention the Commissioner, if he grants a patent, grants it for the term of seventeen years. If subsequent litigation discloses the prior granting of a foreign patent for a term sooner ending, it will be impossible for the United States patent to continue in force for the full term expressed on its face. The Supreme Court has lately held that, under such circumstances, the patent may be reformed by construction, and thus be given the same duration that it ought to have purported to have. But other courts had previously held that, under the same circumstances, a patent is altogether void. The subject is fully explained in the seventh chapter of this book, and is mentioned in this place in order to show the practical importance | Patent Office Rule 39.

2 Patent Office Rule 39. Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 572, 1888.


of conforming to the rule of the Patent Office in regard to the matter.

$ 113. The general statement of the nature and function of the invention, is a convenient mode of introducing the detailed description. If it is omitted in form, it will necessarily be inserted in substance in the detailed description itself. $ 114. The description of the drawings is a convenience in

а aid of their understanding, but if that description is omitted, and all reference to the drawings is excluded from the specification, no statutory requirement is necessarily departed from.' In such a case, however, the specification would perhaps be impossible to be understood, and therefore be obnoxious to the rules stated in the next section.

$ 115. The detailed description must be full enough, and clear enough, and concise enough, and exact enough, to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention, if it is a machine or a manufacture, or to compound the invention, if it is a composition of matter, or to perform the invention, if it is a process.' If the description falls below this standard, the patent, if granted, will be void.' But this standard may be reached, in the case of a design, by a reference to the drawing or photograph * annexed to the specification.

The statute also says that in case of a machine, the applicant shall explain the principle thereof, and the best mode in which he has contemplated applying that principle, so as to distinguish it from other inventions." These provisions must be read in the light of their avowed object. That object is identification. The first provision cannot mean that the inventor must infallibly explain the law of nature which makes his machine work; for if it means that, neither Morse nor Bell complied with it when describing the telegraph or



· Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatch. 9, 1845.

? Revised Statutes, Section 4888.
3 O'Reilly o. Morse, 15 Howard,

62, 1853.

* Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U. S. 14, 1885.

5 Revised Statutes, Section 4888.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »