of the joint applicants made the invention before the adverse party, Weston v. Hunt, 3 Dec. Com. 68; Pugh v. Hamilton, 3 Dec. Com. 116; Crane & Rogers, 3 Dec. Com. 230.

When an interference is declared between parties who have a patent as joint inventors, and one of them as sole inventor, it should be dissolved, if both declare that there was no joint invention. Walton v. Dennis, 16 O. G. 959.

If the evidence shows that neither party made the invention singly, but that they made it jointly, the interference will be dissolved. Taylor v. Martin, 16 O. G. 138.

If the parties have made oath to a joint application, an interference will not be dissolved, although the affidavit was not taken before the proper officer. Warnant v. Warnant, 17 O. G. 265.

Although the patentability of an invention has been sustained notwithstanding a reference, yet a motion may be made to dissolve an interference on the same reference. Stone v. Greaves, 17 O. G. 397.

If an issue is made on a generic claim, the interference can not be dissolved upon filing a disclaimer of a specific claim. Walsh v. Shinn, 16 O. G. 1006.

If the party filing the latter application disclaims all interest in the invention, the interference will be dissolved. Laverty v. Flagg, 16 O. G. 1141.

If an applicant connects himself with a prior foreign patent, the interference can not be dissolved on motion. Von Alteneek v. Thomson, 17 O. G. 571.

A party to a pending interference can withdraw only such claims as cover devices not involved in the interference, so that, if he obtains a patent for them on a separate application, it shall not prejudice the interests of the other party. Hermance v. Bussey, 3 Dec. Com. 216.

If an interference is dissolved upon the withdrawal of his application by one of the parties, this does not entitle the other to a decision in his favor on the question of priority. Eames v. McDougall, 3 Dec. Com. 206.

During an interference, the primary examiner may request its suspension for the purpose of considering new references. Anson v. Woodbury, 11 O. G. 243.

If the claim in interference is broader in scope than the special devices shown by any of the parties, the subject-matter involved can not be limited to just what is shown by either of said parties. Lacroix & Welch, 4 O. G. 526.

After the declaration of an interference it can not be dissolved, except by the order of the examiner in charge of interferences, or the commissioner, or by the board of examiners in chief or commissioner on appeal. Traut v. Disston, 2 Dec. Com. 99.

A motion to dissolve an interference on the ground that the applicant's invention is not patentable, may be made before the examiner of interferences after the testimony has been taken. Lynch v. Dryden, 3 O. G. 407.

If the case is pending before the examiner of interferences, a motion to dissolve an interference on the ground of lack of patentability of the subject-matter can only be made before him. Barney v. Kellogg, 17 O. G. 1096.

A motion to dissolve an interference may be made at any stage of the proceedings, whether before or after the filing of a preliminary statement. Banks v. Snediker, 16 O. G. 1096.

A motion to dissolve an interference on the ground that the subject matter is not patentable should be made at the outset. Blinn v. Gale, 16 O. G. 459.

A motion to dissolve an interference will not be entertained without proof of notice to the adverse party. Gray v. Bell, 15 O. G. 385; Bell v. Gray, 15 O. G. 776.

If the operativeness of a device is denied on a motion to dissolve an interference, the applicant may submit affidavits to prove that it is operative. Fuller v. Brush, 16 O. G. 1188.

If a motion for a dissolution of an interference has been decided, another motion on the same ground can not be entertained. Banks v.. Snediker, 17 O. G. 508.

If a motion to dissolve an interference on the ground of want of novelty in the invention, is overruled, the party may immediately file a protest against the issue of a patent on the ground of the non-patentability of the invention. Fowler v. Benton, 17 O. G. 266.

If it is necessary to make new parties, an interference should be suspended but not dissolved. Maloney v. Kidwell, 16 O. G. 1139.

If a motion is made to dissolve an interference because the invention in controversy has been in public use for more than two years, the interference may be suspended and the case remanded to the primary examiner, who may consider ex parte affidavits. Hedges v. Daniels, 17 Ó. G. 152.

A proceeding will not be suspended although the title to a patent which is in interference, is in litigation between alleged owners. Keith v. Faure,

25 O. G. 289.

If the notice of the refusal of the primary examiner to dissolve an interference limits the appeal to ten days, the time begins to run from the receipt of the notice. George E. Buckley, 24 O. G. Ĭ175.

Rehearing.

A motion to open an interference for a rehearing, after a decision, will be refused where there is gross negligence in preparing for it. Covel v. Maxim, 1 Dec. Com. 78; Aldrich v. Bingham, 3 Dec. Com. 90; Hamilton v. Fisher, 3 Dec. Com. 271; Stevens v. Putnam, 18 O. G. 519; Rogers v. Bear, 16 O. G. 908.

A motion to open an interference for a rehearing will be granted when new evidence has been found which is material to the issue. Disston v. Emerson, 2 Dec. Com. 84; Richmond v. Hibbard, 16 O. G. 908.

To entitle a party to a reopening of his case, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown that it was either discovered since the case was decided, or could not have been earlier obtained. Merrill v. Gliddon, 100. G. 863.

A rehearing will not be granted to allow a party to introduce evidence which he could have obtained by the use of reasonable diligence. Josselyn v. Swezey, 15 O. G. 702; Withington v. Gordon, 17 O. G. 329.

If it appears that the testimony was not newly discovered, but was in the possession of the party from the beginning of the proceedings, an interference will not be reopened. William S. Gillen, 11 O. G. 419.

A default in an interference case will not be set aside if the party has been guilty of laches. Jones v. Greenleaf, 15 O. G. 560.

If a party availing himself of a default in an interference case obtains a patent, he cannot upon discovering that his opponent was the prior inventor have the default set aside where the adverse party has been guilty of laches. Jones v. Greenleaf, 15 O. G. 560.

If a party elects to rely upon a proposition of law, he can not ask for a rehearing in order to introduce evidence when the decision is against him. Farcot v. Rice, 15 O. G. 563.

A party may obtain a rehearing although the evidence is not such as would entitle him to a new trial in an action at law. Eccard v. Drawabaugh, 24 O. G. 301; contra, I. C. Pattee, 2 O. G. 618; Marsh v. Dodge, 2 O. G. 643; Dodd v. Cobb, 10 O. G. 462; Merrill v. Glidden, 10 O. G. 863; Slade v. Blair, 15 O. G. 830; Yost v. Powell, 13 O. G. 122; Gardner v. Dudley, 18 O. G. 683; Wicks v. McAvoy, 18 O. G. 859.

On a motion for a rehearing on the same evidence, the question always is whether the findings of fact in the former decision are either wholly unsupported by or clearly in conflict with the evidence. Packard v. Sanford, 16 O. G. 1182.

A case will not be reopened merely to oblige a party who has purchased an interest in an invention which was unknown to the party in interference. Mason, Imlay & Co., 2 O. G. 274.

A rehearing may be granted even after a patcnt has been granted to the successful applicant. Hibbard v. Richmond, 17 O. G. 1155.

A motion for a rehearing will not be allowed if one of the claims has been amended since the hearing. Hoffman, 16 O. G. 857.

A motion for a rehearing should set forth the facts themselves which constitute the ground for the application, and not merely refer to the affidavits, so that the commissioner may understand the ground and its validity. Huttner v. Knox, 15 O. G. 294.

An ex parte affidavit is not competent evidence to be used in support of a motion to reopen an interference. Connor v. Williams, 15 O. G. 386.

Practice.

After the determination of an interference a new one should not be declared without the order of the commissioner. Hovey v. Muller, 3 O. G. 149.

The commissioner may declare more than one interference, and a hearing and decision between the applicant for a patent and A, whether in favor of one or the other, forms no rule for a decision between the applicant and B in the case of an interference declared. The proceedings are independent and inter alios. Potter v. Dixon, 2 Fish. 381; s. c. 5 Blatch. 160.

If the examiners in chief discover a reason not given by the primary examiner why a patent should not issue, they should not remand the case to him, but should make a statement to the commissioner. William S. Smoot, 11 O. G. 1010.

If an interference between an applicant and two patents is determined against the applicant, the jurisdiction of the patent office ceases, and it can not then determine the question of priority as between the patents. Marshall v. Fish, 16 O. G. 139.

If the preliminary statements show that the date of the invention of the last applicant was subsequent to the filing of the prior application, the first applicant may move for an immediate adjudication of the case on the record. Huntley v. Smith, 23 O. G. 795; Starr v. Farmer, 23 O. G. 2325.

If a party has an interest in an invention and a power of attorney, he may interfere to have a concession of priority made by his principal set aside and an interference reinstated. Pratt v. Hammond, 16 O. G. 1235.

An applicant can not file a disclaimer after an interference has been declared without notice to the adverse party. Shinn, 16 O. G. 458.

If an interference is declared between a generic and specific claim, and priority is awarded to the inventor of the generic claim, a patent will not be issued for the specific claim in subordination to the patent for the generic claim except upon the application of the inventor. William Gardner, 17 O. G. 626.

If a sole inventor who has taken out a patent jointly with another files an application in his own name, his rights on an interference are not concluded by a mere denial of the joint patentee. Lovrien v. Banister 18 O. G. 299.

If a patent has been awarded, a second patent can not on interference be awarded to an assignee. Swift v. Rochow, 17 O. G. 450.

If a decision of the commissioner rejecting an application for want of novelty is reversed on appeal, an interference pending between that application and another may be reinstated. Cruikshank v. Strong, 17 O. G. 511.

The mere fact that a party has a caveat which antedates the other interfering applications will not warrant an immediate adjudication of priority. Booth v. Lyman, 18 O. G. 132.

If a junior applicant files a preliminary statement which affects the prima facie case made by a prior application, a demand for an immediate adjudication can only be made on motion with notice to the adverse party. Booth v. Lyman, 17 O. G. 393.

If a reference to a prior invention is discovered after the declaration of an interference, the interference may be suspended until the question of patentability is discovered. Stone v. Greaves, 17 O. G. 260.

The mere making of a motion does not necessarily stay the proceedings in the case. A motion in order to operate as a stay must be accompanied by a petition to that effect. An order should then be entered at or before the hearing of said motion, granting or refusing the petition. DuBois v. McCloskey, 17 O. G. 1158.

If the decision on an interference is in favor of an applicant, the commissioner can not suspend the issue of a patent, for his duties then are merely ministerial and the statute is mandatory. The words "may issue" must be construed as shall. James Sargent, 12 O. G. 475.

Although an application may contain claims which have not been put in interference with a prior patent, yet the applicant can not have a patent for them before the decision in the interference case if they are shown in the prior patent. Wheeler, 23 O. G. 1031.

The issue of a patent can not be suspended because a party to an interference has filed a bill in equity where all the questions may be decided de novo. James Sargent, 12 O. G. 475; Edwin L. Paine, 13 O. G. 407. Where there is a doubt whether the only invention to which the successful party in an interference is found to be entitled is new, his application should be referred back to the examiner to investigate the question. Hovey v. Hufeland et al., 2 O. G. 493; Wood v. Morris, 4 O. G. 131.

If the evidence shows that the invention of the party who was the prior inventor had been in public use for more than two years before the filing of his application, the application may be referred to the primary examiner for consideration. Quimby v. Randall, 14 O. G. 748.

Although there is evidence to show that the invention was in public use for more than two years prior to the application, yet a reference to a primary examiner to determine that point can only be made when the

case is brought regularly before the commissioner on appeal. Finch v. Bailey, 25 O. G. 191.

Decision.

Where one of two, who have taken out a joint patent as joint inventors, files an application claiming the same invention as made by himself alone, the patent will not be disturbed if the facts are disputed. De Lill v. Avery, 2 Dec. Com. 128; Joseph Barsaloux, 9 O. G. 883.

Judgment of priority is conclusive not only on interfering matters which were claimed, but on all which might have been claimed. Harlow v. Guernsey, 7 O. G. 513; Whiteley v. McCormick, 10 O. G. 826.

Where each applicant claims to have made the invention several years previous to their applications, and one has been steadily making and selling the article, no patent will be issued to either. Love v. Howe, 1 Dec. Com. 66.

Whether the party to whom priority of invention is awarded shall receive a patent is not to be decided by the interference proceeding, but as an ex parte matter. Little v. Lillie, 10 O. G. 543.

The decision upon an interference does not establish the rights of the parties, so as to preclude the office from examining into them again on new grounds, while their applications are still pending. Abraham v. Fletcher, 1 Dec. Com. 50.

A party who was defeated in an interference is precluded from again setting up title to any matter which was properly determined therein. John Burge, 13 O. G. 498.

Although a party who accepts a patent issued in pursuance of a stipulation signed by his attorney in an interference case is bound by the stipulation, yet the stipulation can not be enforced upon a subsequent application. Tucker v. Kahler, 15 O. G. 966.

SEC. 4905. The commissioner of patents may establish rules for taking affidavits and depositions required in cases pending in the patent office, and such affidavits and depositions may be taken before any officer authorized by law to take depositions to be used in the courts of the United States, or of the State where the officer resides.

Statute Revised—July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 43, 16 Stat. 204.

Prior Statutes-March 3, 1839, ch. 88, 12, 5 Stat. 355.-March 2, 1861, 88, 21, 12 Stat. 246.

Depositions.

ch.

The commissioner may by rule provide for the use of ex parte affidavits to be used against an applicant for a patent. Hedges v. Daniels, 17 O. G. 394.

A deposition can not be taken in a foreign country to be used in an interference case unless it is authorized by rule. Aet v. Saratoga, 16 O. G. 810.

A deposition can not be taken before a consul in a foreign country without previous authority from the commissioner. Lauder v. Crowell, 16 O. G. 405.