An amendment may be made of a model or drawing if it does not depart from the invention described in the application. Dunn, 16 O. G. 1004. Although the original application was for a continuous process, yet the applicant may amend it so as to make it consist of successive stages. Wohltmann, 16 O. G. 723.

If the original application does not describe any mode of producing the article, it may be amended by adding such description. James Lee, 15 O. G. 512.

If there is a generic claim, the several species can not be first described in an amended application. Morrison, 16 O. G. 359.

If priority of invention is awarded to another on all the claims contained in an application, the applicant can not afterwards amend by inserting other claims. Cobb, 16 O. G. 175.

If a party has two applications, and a claim is equally appropriate to both, he can not insert it by an amendment in the first application if it is shown in a patent already issued on the second application. Emerson, 16 O. G. 1232.

An amendment may be made, although more than two years have elapsed after the application was filed. Wm. C. Dodge, 3 O. G. 179.

If an applicant who has stricken out a claim desires to restore it, he must rewrite it. Mumler, 24 O. G. 1090.

An amendment which is substantially the same as the application that has already been rejected, will not be allowed. Hitt, 25 O. G. 192.

After an application has been finally rejected on an appeal to the court, it is within the discretion of the commissioner whether any amendment of it shall be allowed. Whiteley & Gage, 1 Dec. Com. 53.

If a disclaimer does not affect any material part of the claim it may be signed by the attorney. Murdoch, 16 O. G. 957.

SEC. 4904. Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the commissioner, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, he shall give notice thereof to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be, and shall direct the primary examiner to proceed to determine the question of priority of invention. And the commissioner may issue a patent to the party who is adjudged the prior inventor, unless the adverse party appeals from the decision of the primary examiner, or of the board of examiners in chief, as the case may be, within such time, not less than twenty days, as the commissioner shall prescribe.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 42, 16 Stat. 204.

Prior Statutes-February 21, 1793, ch. 11, § 9, 1 Stat. 322.—July 4, 1836, ch. 357, 8, 5 Stat. 120.

How the commissioner is to obtain information of the interfering patent is not provided for in the statute, and hence the matter is necessarily left to his discretion to obtain it in the best way that he can. If the party interested may know of the application, he can bring the interference to the notice of the commissioner, or if the commissioner happens to recollect the issuing or existence of the previous patent, he may act upon that information. It would be very unreasonable to require him to recollect all the previous patents at the time that might interfere with the one applied for, or to require the party interested to know that an application was pending in the office for a patent interfering with his. Potter v. Dixon, 2 Fish. 381; s. c. 5 Blatch. 160.

A man may have letters patent issue to him individually, for that which he has claimed as a joint invention with another, and he is not estopped by such joint patent from claiming an interference. Crocker's Case, 2 A. L. T. 129.

An applicant can not be put into interference with an applicant who subsequently files an application. Ex parte Platts & Walden, 15 O. G. 827. A reissue can not be withheld on the ground that an interfering appli cation was filed after the granting of the original patent. Thomas J. Mayall, 11 O. G. 1107.

Priority of invention is the only question that can be heard or determined on an interference. United States v. Commissioner, 7 O. G. 603. When the application is for a combination, form and structure become substance, and an admission that one is different in its form and structure from another, is an admission of a fact which is prima facie evidence that there is no interference between the two. Bain v. Morse, 6 West. L. J. 372. The decision of the patent office, after an interference has been declared between an application and a prior patent, is not conclusive or final. Union Paper Bag Co. v. Crane, 1 Holmes 420; s. c. 6 O. G. 801; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 494; Wire B. S. M. Co. v. Stevenson, 11 Fed. Rep. 155; s. c. 39 Leg. Int. 82.

So long as the final decision on an interference proceeding remains unreversed and unaffected by any proceedings authorized to be instituted in equity, it is obligatory and must be deemed res adjudicata between the parties. Peck v. Collins, 70 N. Y. 376.

A statement made by an inventor to the patent office as to the date of his invention does not estop him from setting up a prior date in an action under this section. Union Paper Bag Co. v. Crane, 1 Holmes 420; s. c. 6 O. G. 801; s. c. 1 Ban & Ard. 494.

If an interference is declared, and the examiner in chief on appeal suspects from the evidence that the applicant has abandoned his invention to the public, and that question is referred to an examiner, the owner of the prior patent cannot appeal from the decision of the examiner on that point. United States v. Commissioner, 7 O. G. 603.

A notice to produce the deposition before a commissioner for inspection is not a waiver of a want of notice, although the opposite party offers to produce the witnesses for cross-examination. Perry v. Cornell, Cranch Pat. Dec. 132.

If there is an informality in the transmission of the deposition, the commissioner may postpone the hearing in order to enable the party to cure the defect. Smith v. Flickenger, Cranch Pat. Dec. 116.

An objection to the insufficiency of the time between the notice and the taking of the deposition, can not be considered unless it is taken at the hearing. Smith v. Flickenger, Cranch Pat. Dec. 116.

If the person who takes the deposition omits to state that it was sealed up by him, it can not be used. Arnold v. Bishop, Cranch Pat. Dec. 103. The rules, so long as they remain unabrogated, are as binding on the commissioner as the law itself. Arnold v. Bishop, Cranch Pat. Dec. 103. A party who appears and cross-examines a witness can not object to the shortness of the notice of the time of taking the evidence. Arnold v. Bishop, Cranch Pat. Dec. 103.

Declaration of Interferencc.

An application is pending until the patent has been signed, sealed and delivered, and if another application is filed covering the same claims prior to the delivery of the patent, an interference should be declared, although a decision has been given in favor of the prior application on one interference. Lawrence, 16 Ö. G. 955; contra, Wright v. Reese, 11 O. G. 329.

In declaring an interference the examiner should define the subject matter and specify the interfering claims. It is not sufficient to mention the matter constituting the issue without specifying the claims nor to specify the claims without defining the matter. Stephens v. Bailey, 13 0. G. 45.

Where two applications, or an application and a patent interfere, all the interferences between them must be set forth in the case in a single count, if they present only a single issue, or in several counts if they present several issues. Bell v. Gray, 15 O. G. 776.

If an interference is declared, then all the applications and patents and those only which interfere with each and all of the other applications and patents embraced in each count or subdivision of an interference are to be included in that interference. Bell v. Gray, 15 O. G. 776.

If a motion to amend a declaration of an interference has been once refused, it will not be reconsidered unless upon a new state of facts or upon grounds that would support a motion for a new trial. Lee v. Walsh, 15 O. G. 563.

If an amendment to an issue in an interference case is ambiguous, it can not be allowed. Thomas v. Gutman, 16 O. G. 857.

The question of novelty should be settled in all cases before an interference is declared, but if it is made an issue subsequently it can not be ignored. Wood v. Morris, 3 O. G. 239.

Failure to make objections before the expiration of the time for filing preliminary statements will be considered as a waiver thereof and consent to the interference. Anson v. Woodbury, 11 O. G. 243.

When Interference Declared.

Although a patent has been issued to another for substantially the same thing during the pendency of the application, yet the applicant is not

entitled to a patent without being required to prove priority of invention in an interference with the existing patent. William Price, 1 O. G. 574. An interference should be declared where a device claimed in an application is shown in a patent, though not claimed. E. S. Wright, 2 Dec. Com. 60.

If a patentee may claim a particular feature on a reissue, he should be made a party to an interference. Lee v. Walsh, 15 O. G. 563.

If an application is found to conflict with two or more patents, an interference should be declared, including all the parties, and not a separate interference with each patent. Wilson v. Yakel, 10 O. G. 944.

An interference may be declared between one or more applications and two or more patents, and priority awarded to one of the patents, or to an application according to the facts. Nicholson v. Bennett, 16 O. G. 631. If the claims in two applications are for substantially the same invention, an interference should be declared, although they are in different language. Drawbaugh v. Blake, 23 O. G. 1221.

If, pending an application, a patent is issued to a later applicant, the first applicant is entitled to have an interference declared with the patent issued to the later one. Marston, 21 O. G. 633.

An application may be put in interference with a prior patent, although the applicant has an English patent prior to the American patent. Bland, 16 O. G. 47.

An interference can not be declared between an American inventor and a foreign inventor when there is no evidence of any fact that would invalidate a patent to an American inventor. Thomas v. Reese, 16 O. G. 1234; Thomas v. Reese, 17 O. G. 195; Nagel, 17 O. G. 198.

It is not necessary to an interference that the combination of each party should consist of elements identically the same in form, so long as the combinations are equivalents in arrangement and operation. Withington v. Locke, 11 O. G. 417.

Where one party claims broadly an element when used in any composition of a certain class, and another claims the same element when used in a particular composition of that class, an interference must be declared. Boon v. Hinman, 2 Dec. Com. 7.

Where two combinations producing the same effect are identical, except as to a single element which is present in one but wanting in the other, a case of interference arises, because the latter combination if first invented will anticipate and defeat the former. Banks v. Snediker, 17 O. G. 508.

An interference may be declared between a generic claim and a claim for a species of the same genus. William Gardner, 17 O. G. 626.

If neither party is entitled to a generic claim, an interference can not be declared between them when they claim different specific claims. William Gardner, 17 O. G. 626.

If the different claims do not have the same meaning, there is no interference, although they use the same words in describing devices that are substantially different. Greenough v. Drummond, 16 Ŏ. G. 586; Nicholson v. Bennett, 16 O. G. 631.

If one party claims a process and the other the product thereof, the claims interfere, for either by amendment or reissue may insert the claim of the other. Finley v. Chapman, 1 O. G. 277.

The descriptive phrases "interlaced ruled lines" and "any of the known means of pen-ruling" are co-extensive. Duthie v. Casilear, 1 0. G. 255.

An interference is properly declared where no claim can be made upon the device of the party first in the office, which would not be embraced in

that of the other party. Bacheller v. Porter, 1 Dec. Com. 64; Berliner v. Gower, 15 O. G. 1055.

There can be no conflict between devices intended as improvements upon an original device, but not upon each other, where they perform the same result, but differ in their method of performing it, which is their principal operation, as much as they differ from the original. Barton v. Babcock, 1 Dec. Com. 67; Fletcher v. Abraham, 2 Dec. Com. 26.

If an application is filed for a mechanical patent for a construction, and if a design for which a patent has been granted can be produced only by that construction, an interference should be declared. Collender v. Griffith, 3 O. G. 91; s. c. 3 O. G. 267.

An interference can not be declared merely because the applicant may possibly during the pendency of the case make a claim that will interfere. Nicholson v. Bennett, 16 O. G. 631.

An interference should be declared where reference is made to a rejected joint application, and the question decided according to the rules. John B. Welpton, 3 O. G. 440.

Casilear &

A patent will be issued without giving notice to parties whose applications for a similar invention have been previously rejected. McIntire, 8 O. G. 474; contra, Rouse & Stoddard, 7 O. G. 169.

If, pending an interference between A, B and C, D files an application not claiming or showing the invention in interference, but claiming other matter claimed by A and shown by B and C, he is entitled to an interference with A, and also upon an amendment of their applications with B and C, without waiting for the final adjudications of the pending inter'ference. Smith, 17 O. G. 447.

If a party who is successful on an interference fails to pay the final fee within the time limited by law, an interference may be declared between the unsuccessful party and a subsequent applicant, and, if the latter succeeds, he may obtain a patent. Anon. 12 0. G. 979.

An interference will not be declared between a pending application and an application which has been forfeited, and upon reference to which it has been rejected. James Spear, 5 O. G. 201.

If claims are introduced into an application for a reissue, which are in conflict with a patent granted upon an application filed after the other patent issued, an interference will be declared. Mayall v. Murphy, 5 0. G. 339.

An application for reissue can be put in interference with a patent granted prior to the filing of the original application. Carroll v. Morse, 9 O. G. 453.

An interference can not be declared between a reissue application and an application filed after the granting of the original patent. Becker v. Throop, 8 O. G. 1; Paris v. Busey, 8 Ö. G. 859; contra, Sargent & Burge, 10 O. G. 285.

Preliminary Statement.

Neither the name of an applicant nor any particulars of his invention will be communicated to a patentee with whom he has been placed in interference until the patentee files his preliminary statement. Spalding v. Winchester, 3 Dec. Com. 94.

The office is responsible if a defective preliminary statement is received as sufficient; but if the adverse party takes no exception to it the defect is cured. White & Farmer, 5 O. G. 338.

Since parties are allowed in their preliminary statements to fix the date of their invention, it is proper they should be restricted to a substantial