C. Claims: Page. Acquiescence in rejection of as estoppel. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. 327 Method of construing. d Jones v. Evans. 262 Process application anticipated by patent for apparatus which performs the Ex parte Chapman............ *In re Chapman.............. Combination, old elements, new result, protection of by patent. d Ottumwa Appeal to from rejection of claims recommended by the Examiners-in- 57 Judgment not controlled by mandamus because in conflict with decree of Commerce, statutory provisions, validity of Trade-Mark Acts. d Rossmann v. Concealment of invention, right to patent forfeited because of: Conception of invention, dates established by witnesses. * Barber v. Spalck- 165 Construction of claims: Anticipation and disclosure. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City 236 Broad and narrow claims, suit brought on broad claim, courts cannot con- 310 Estoppel by proceedings in Patent Office. d National Tube Co. v. Mark 310 Limitation of. Ex parte Pease... 48 Phrase "substantially as described," not limitation to exact mechanism. 310 Reading limitations into. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City Woolen 236 Substitution of a certain form of joining metal edges for another, in view of Use of the word "means. *Johnson v. Martin..... Construction of copyright act. **Straus and Straus v. American Publishers' As- 162 347 Construction of copyright acts, 1874 and 1909. In re Prints and Labels... 95 Claims referring to fuller description of an element in specification and 327 Construction of patents-Continued. Page. Demurrer, determination of validity. d Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of 246 Specification and claims must be read and construed together. d Ottumwa 327 34 Construction of Rule 40. Ex parte Karl, Prinz zu Löwenstein.. Section 4887 Revised Statutes. Ex parte Hayes........ Sections 4894 and 4897, Revised Statutes. Henderson and Cantley v. Section 4897 Revised Statutes. || Barber v. Wood.. Certain claims invalid in view of the state of the art, and certain claims Not anticipated, discloses invention and is held infringed. d Cincinnati Reissue void in so far as claims are broadened to cover matter not covered 294 285 Construction of Trade-Mark Statutes. d Rossmann v. Garnier.... 223 202 347 Court of Appeals. Questions certified not apposite to facts stated in certificate 361 D. Decisions of the Patent Office. Review of, by the Courts. d Grand Rapids 294 Delay in filing application. Uncorroborated testimony of applicant as to finan- 111 69 Differentiation of claims, necessity for proper construction and effect. d Wm. 236 Diligence, delay in receiving material. *Bettendorf v. McKeen.... Page. 173 116 Division of application, requirement for, not to ignore one element of claims. 84 E. Employer and employee: Main plan by employer, suggestions by employee, Moody v. Colby.... Equivalents, not restricted to named elements in pioneer patents unless so Rulings of trial court on objections. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. 327 Sufficiency of objections, waiver. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. 327 F. First and original inventor. *Hopkins v. Peters and Dement.. I. Identity of invention. Patents, effect of earlier on later. d Century Electric 116 93 267 Infringement: Anticipation. d Wm. B. Scaife & Sons Co. v. Falls City Woolen Mills.... 236 267 Combination not infringed by mere purchase of elements. **Seim and Equivalents, application of doctrine of, to patents for combinations. Not transferable to party who buys one element only used in manufac- 361 327 357 357 Manufacture immune from suit by reason of prior decision, purchaser of 366 Patent for improvement in existing devices makes small step in the art 294 Presumption as to earlier and later patents. d Century Electric Co. v. 267 Trade-Marks registered under the ten-years clause. **Thaddeus Davids 367 Interference: Applicant and patentee. Morgan v. Taylor v. Hanson.. 90 Application and patent, claim not to be rejected unless anticipation is 29 Interference-Continued. Assignee controlling two applications estopped from introducing sec- ond after final decision. Frickey v. Ogden...... Construction of issue, right to make claim. *Barcley v. Schuler.. Device not tested by actual use not reduction to practice. *Barcley v. Estoppel by reason of long delay. Shreeve v. Grissinger.... Existence of determined under the statute by the Commissioner, not sub- Foreign application, benefit of. Steel and Steel v. Myers.. Inventor first reducing invention to practice entitled to patent, even Motion by patentee to dissolve on ground that issue is not patentable if Patent granted during pendency of application, claims copied for inter- Priority awarded to opponent where the other party could not make claim. Priority, question of res adjudicata. *Cross v. Rusby... Renewed application entitled to original date of filing as constructive re- duction to practice. Right to make claim. Trade-marks, priority of adoption and use properly awarded, mark not Two parties, assignee of one not to bring in third party after final decision. 19 Interrogatories, penalty under Equity Rule 58 for failure to answer. Whit- 34 153 J. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Patents: Mandamus will not lie to direct the manner of exercising. *United States, 186 Jurisdiction of the United States Courts: Matters arising under Trade-Mark statutes under jurisdiction of Federal 223 L. Labels, registration not to be refused because feature is usable as trade-mark. 67 M. Mandamus: Cannot take the place of an appeal or writ of error. *United States, ex rel. To direct Commissioner of Patents as to manner of exercising jurisdiction Manufacture: Page. 186 194 186 An article used in a method of doing business may be so classed under the 216 The term as used in patent law defined. d Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope. 216 Construction of Sherman Act. **Straus and Straus v. American Publish- 347 Copyrighted books, combination to maintain prices of. **Straus and 347 Motion for further proceedings. *Schmidt v. Tait.. 214 P. Particular patents, construction of: d Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.......... 267 246 Patentability: Former decision construed. Ex parte Mumford..... 84 No invention substituting one known material for another to accomplish a 142 Presumed in device disclosing mechanical skill only, but producing a 113 Patents: Number that may be obtained. d Century Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Scope of, features not claimed. d Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg. Co. Presumption, earlier and later patents. d Century Electric Co. v. Westing- Prints and labels, Act of 1874 not repealed by Act of 1909. ‡In re Prints and *Lorimer and Lorimer and Western Electric Company v. Keith, Erick- son, and Erickson and Lundquist..... 202 |