DIGEST OF DECISIONS. Decisions of the Examiners-in-Chief are indicated by parallel lines (I), the Opinion of the Attorney Geng al by a double dagger (‡), decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are ndicated by one star (*), of the United States Court of Appeals by the letter (d), and of the Supreme Court of the United States by two stars (**).] ABANDONED APPLICATIONS. See Continuous Applications. 1. CONCEALMENT OF INVENTION.-Where B. conceived the invention in issue in 1904 and a model thereof was made and tested and subsequently other models of ribbon-vibrators were made, some of which did not embody the invention, but the device was not put on the market, and no attempt was made to file an application for patent until B.'s attention was called to a published description of the device of C., which was being manufactured by C.'s assignee, Held that B.'s work amounted to nothing more than an abandoned experiment or that by the concealment thereof B. had lost his right to a patent. Brown v. Campbell, 37. 2. SAME HOLDING IN ALTERNATIVE-UNOBJECTIONABLE.-A holding by the Commissioner that either the device of B. amounted only to an abandoned experiment or that B. by concealing his device until he was aware of that marketed by C.'s assignee had lost his right to a patent, Held unobjectionable. * Brown v. Campbell, 170. 3. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY.-Where B. made a tin diverter for a potato-paring machine shortly after May, 1906, tested the same for a short period of time, when it was removed from the machine and subsequently lost, and nothing further was done with the invention until 1908, Held that this work amounted to nothing more than an abandoned experiment. Brenizer v. Robinson, 42. 4. SAME-SAME.-Where a diverter was placed in a potato-paring machine which was itself an experimental machine and after some tests the diverter was removed and scrapped and nothing further done with the invention for more than a year and no satisfactory excuse given for the delay, Held that what was done constituted merely an abandoned experiment. Id. ABANDONMENT OF INVENTION. See Particular Patents, 4; Priority of Invention, 20. SECTION 4897 CONSTRUED.-"It is believed to be certain that any state of facts which would constitute an 'abandonment' such as would bar an inventor seeking a patent under section 4886 would also constitute such an abandonment as would bar an inventor seeking a patent under section 4897." ||Barber v. Wood, 1. ABANDONMENT OF TRADE-MARKS. See Renewal of Trade- Mark Registration, 2. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY.—Where it appears that R. & R. began the use of the mark prior to B. and that from the time of adoption thereof sold tablets bearing the mark or kept such tablets in stock or kept on hand the plates for marking paper with this trade-mark and supplied the tablets whenever called for by customers, Held that the mark had not been abandoned and that priority was properly awarded to R. & R. The Reynolds & Reynolds Company v. J. C. Blair Company, 21. ACQUIESCENCE. See Construction of Claims, 24; Reissues, 1; Rejection of Claims, 2. ACTION BY THE EXAMINER. See Construction of Claims, 26; Division of Applications; Prosecution of Applications. AFFIDAVITS. See Interference, 10. NOT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER-WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE Court.— Where affidavits were filed while the case was on appeal to the Commissioner, but these affidavits were not remanded by him for consideration to the Primary Examiner, which was equivalent to refusal by the Commissioner to permit them to be filed, Held that they will not be considered by the court. *In re Merrill, 113. AGGREGATION. See Particular Patents, 14; Patentability, 3; Terminology. AGREEMENT. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 3, 4; Construction of Statutes, 1; Copyrights. ALLEGATIONS. See Appeal; Construction of Claims, 11; Interference, 10; Opposition to Registration of Trade- Marks, 1; Priority of Invention, 3; Registration of Trade- Marks, 2. ALTERNATIVES. See Abandoned Experiments, 2. AMBIGUOUS CLAIMS. See Construction of Claims, 20. AMENDMENTS. See Construction of Claims, 26; Prosecution of Applications; Reissues, 1; Rejection of Claims, 2. ANCILLARY INVENTION. See Employer and Employee, 3. ANTICIPATION. See Construction of Claims, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16; Infringement, 10; Interference, 4; Particular Patents, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13; Prosecution of Applications; Testimony, 3. 1. APPLICATIONS PENDING TOGETHER.-Where each of several applications which subsequently ripen into patents to the same inventor describes the same machine and process and the inventions claimed in all the applications, but no one of the applications claims any invention claimed in any of the others, and they are all pending at the same time, the respective dates of the applications and of the patents and the respective dates when the applications were filed are immaterial, and the applications and patents cannot be used to anticipate or avoid each other. Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 267. d 2. PENDING APPLICATIONS BY PATENTEE. For the purposes of anticipation by another patent the date of issue controls, and a claim of the principal feature of the invention covered by a patent by the patentee in prior applications, which were still pending when such patent issued, does not constitute an anticipation. Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg. Co., 285. 3. COMBINATIONS.—It constitutes no anticipation and no defense to a claim of infringement that one or more elements of a patented combination, or one or more parts of a patented improvement, may be found in one old patent or publication and others in another and still others in a third. It is indispensable that all of them, or their mechanical equivalents, be found in the same description or machine where they accomplish substantially the same result by substantially the same means as does the patented combination. Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co., 327. 4. TRADE-MARKS-"OLD MISSION"-"MISSION."-The words "Old Mission" as a trade-mark for lager-beer, Held not anticipated by a prior registration of the word "Mission" as a trade-mark for a malt tonic. Ex parte Mission Brewing Company, 91. APPEAL. See Appeal to the Commissioner of Patents; Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia; Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States; Mandamus, 1; Priority of Invention, 18. APPEAL Continued. 1. LIE FROM A DECISION AND NOT FROM THE REASONS OF THE DECISION.It is well settled that an appeal is from the decision and not from the grounds or reasons upon which the decision is based, and where the Examiner of Trade-Marks granted a motion to dissolve, an appeal by the moving party alleging error in the reasons given by the Examiner for dissolving the interference will be dismissed. S. Galle & Company v. Western Grocer Company, 32. 2. MATTERS REVIEWABLE-RULINGS ON OBJECTION.-A ruling by the trial court upon objections to evidence in equity must be obtained or refused and exception taken, and these proceedings made of record, to warrant a consideration of the questions they suggest in an appellate court. Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co., 327. Ottumwa APPEAL FROM THE EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF. See Priority of Invention, 18. APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Affidavits. NEW REFERENCE BY EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF PRACTICE. Where the Examinersin-Chief cite a new reference and recommend that certain of the appealed claims be rejected in view thereof, Held that the recommendaton will be considered on direct appeal to the Commissioner, if applicant so desires. Ex parte Dimm, 57. APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 1. FROM COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS-FAILURE TO FILE RECORD WITHIN FORTY DAYS-EXTENSION OF TIME.-Assuming, without deciding, that the Commissioner may have the power to grant an extension of the time for filing the record, that power, as is the case with the courts, can only be exercised before the expiration of the forty days provided by the rule. *Schmidt v. Tait, 214. 2. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.-Where S. failed to file his record with the clerk of the court within the forty days allowed by the rule and thereafter T. filed a motion in the Patent Office requesting further proceedings, in accordance with the decision of the Commissioner, Held that it was the duty of the Commissioner to grant appellee's motion to take further proceedings necessary to dispose of his case, as though no notice of appeal had ever been given. *Id. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. See APPLICANT AND PATENTEE. See Interference, 4, 5; Motion to Dissolve Inter ference. APPLICATION AND PATENT. See Priority of Invention, 17. APPLICATIONS. See Anticipation, 1; Construction of Claims, 22; Construction of Statutes, 2. ASSIGNEES. See Abandoned Experiments, 1, 2; Concealment of Invention, 1; Interference, 1, 12. ASSIGNEES' RIGHT TO PROSECUTE APPLICATION. RIGHT TO PROSECUTE-EQUITABLE ASSIGNEE.-Where the entire right, title, and interest in an application for patent is assigned, Held that the assignee should be allowed to prosecute the application to the exclusion of the inventor, even though the assignment does not contain a request that the patent be issued to the assignee. Ex parte Hill and Hill, 86. ATTORNEY. See Priority of Invention, 6; Reissues, 2. AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 1; Mandamus, 2, 3. BAR TO PATENT. See Abandonment of Invention; Construction of Claims, 11; Designs. BROAD AND NARROW CLAIMS. See Construction of Claims, 25. CANCELATION OF TRADE-MARK REGISTRATION. See Construction of Trade- Mark Statutes, 2, 12. NEW EQUITY RULES-INTERROGATORIES.-Held that the new equity rules apply to cancelation proceedings and that either party thereto may file interrogatories and that in the event of the failure to answer such interrogatories the party in default is liable to the penalty provided by Equity Rule 58. Whiting-Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming Co., 34. CERTIFIED QUESTION. See Court of Appeals. CERTIORARI. See Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. See Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. CITIZENSHIP. See Jurisdiction of Federal Courts. CLAIMS. Anticipation, 1, 2; Appeal to the Commissioner of Patents; Construction of Claims; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 4, 5. SCOPE FEATURES NOT CLAIMED.-If the mechanism described in a patent in itself discloses the principal advantageous feature of the invention, it is not necessary that it should be claimed in specific terms. Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg. Co., 285. COAT-OF-ARMS. See Construction of Trade- Mark Statutes, 5; Registration of TradeMarks, 2, 3. COLOR. See Similarity of Marks, 2. COMBINATION. See Anticipation, 3; Construction of Claims, 22; Division of Appli cations; Infringement, 1, 3, 4, 12, 14; Particular Patents, 7, 10, 11; Patentability, 3, 4; Pioneer Invention, 2; Rejection of Claims, 2; Right to Patent, 2. OLD ELEMENTS.-A new combination of old elements, whereby a new and useful result is produced or an old result is attained in a more facile, economical, and efficient way, may be as securely protected by a patent as a new machine or composition of matter. (Patentability of combinations of old elements as dependent on results attained, see note to National Tube Co. v. Aiken, 91 C. C. A., 123.) Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co., 327. COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. See Construction of Statutes, 1; Copyrights, 2. COMMERCE. See Construction of Trade-Mark Statutes, 8, 9; Copyrights, 2; Suits for Infringement, 1. COMMON KNOWLEDGE. See Validity of Patents. CONCEALMENT OF INVENTION. See Abandoned Experiments, 1, 2. 1. ABANDONED EXPERIMENT.-Where after a model of B.'s device was exhibited at a conference of the officials of the assignee company B. left the question of building such a device in the hands of the officials of this company, and it was not placed on the market or an application for patent therefor filed until C.'s device had been manufactured and B.'s attention called to a published account thereof, Held that the fact that B.'s work was disclosed to various workmen and officials of the assignee company does not take the case out of the ruling in Mason v. Hepburn, C. D., 1898, 510; 84 O. G., 147; 13 App. D. C., 86. Brown v. Campbell, 37. 2. SAME. The man who secretes his invention makes easier and plainer the path of no one. He contributes nothing to the public. The law owes nothing to an inventor who hides away his invention, and to permit him to lie in wait for one who independently and in good faith proceeds to disclose the invention to the public would be against the policy of the patent laws. In the eyes of the law he is not the prior inventor. *Brown v. Campbell, 170. CONCEPTION OF INVENTION. See Abandoned Experiments, 1; Employer and Employee, 3; Interference, 2; Priority of Invention, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12. CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION. See Construction of Trade-Mark Statutes, 8; Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 4, 5, 6, 7; Division of Applications; Infringement, 10; Motion to Dissolve Interference, 2; Particular Patents, 3, 7, 8. 1. PATENTABILITY-PROCESS OF PRODUCING GAS.-Claims for a process of producing gas, the essence of which consists in causing relative movement of parts of the incandescent mass, Held anticipated by the patent to Lackner, since the process claimed is performed by the apparatus of the patent. Ex parte Chapman, 11. 2. SAME-SAME.-Claims for a process of generating gas, Held unpatentable on the ground that the process is the same as that performed by the operation of the apparatus of the Lackner patent. *In re Chapman, 100. 3. PROCESS FOR TREATING SEMISOLID MATERIAL IN THE CONTAINERS OF FILTERPRESSES.-Claims for a process of treating semisolid material in the containers of filter-presses, Held unpatentable in view of the prior art, since so far as the record shows the various steps of the process produce but a combination of known results. *In re Merrill, 113. 4. PATENTABILITY-TRACKER-Box.-Claims for a pivotally-mounted tracker-box adapted to be swung into position in front of the keyboard when the piano is to be operated mechanically or to be swung below the keyboard, where it is out of the way, if it is desired to play the piano manually, Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. Ex parte Cooper, 26. 5. SAME SAME.-Claims for a pivotally-mounted tracker-box for a piano-player, Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. *In re Cooper, 140. 6. SAME BELT-LOOP.-A claim for a belt-loop, Held unpatentable where the article differed from that shown in a prior patent only in the manner in which it was sewed and the stitches used were shown in other patents. *In re McNeil, 141. 7. SAME-TRACK OF T-SECTION RAILROAD-RAIL BENT INTO CIRCULAR Form.— Where the prior art shows endless tracks of T-shape made of cast-steel, Held that claims for a track consisting of a T-section railroad-rail bent into circular shape are not patentable, whatever invention applicant has made being confined to his apparatus and process. *In re Capron, 142. 8. SAME ROAD-PAVEMENTS.-Claims for a road-pavement consisting of a monolithic body of concrete and a semi-elastic wearing-surface of substantially pure bitumen, Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. *In re Groves, 144. 9. SAME APPLIANCE FOR SUPPLYING OXYGEN AND AIR TO DIVERS.-Claim for an appliance for supplying oxygen and air to divers, Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. *In re Fleuss and Davis, 149. 10. INTERFERENCE-USE OF TERM "MEANS."-Where the claim in issue includes "means for alternately conveying the cartons one at a time from said streams to the conveyer," Held that as there is no limitation that the means convey the cartons directly to the machine the claim should be construed broadly and includes a construction in which several elements are required to convey the cartons to the machine. *Johnson v. Martin, 162. 11. SAME QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY HAS NO BEARING THEREON.-Where it is contended that the issue should not be given a broad construction because the appellee's machine which was claimed as a reduction to practice is alleged to have been in public use more than two years before the filing of his application, Held that the question of priority is the only one before the court, and the question of a statutory bar to a patent containing the claims in interference is not in issue. *Id. |