J. John L. Whiting-J. J. Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming *Johnson v. Martin.......... d Jones v. Evans.. Page. 34 162 262 K. Karl, Prinz zu Löwenstein. Ex parte.... 89 *Keasbey & Mattison Company. Woven Steel Hose & Rubber Company v. 102 202 202 61 d Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co. et al..... 246 L. Lawrence & Son, W. A., v. The Licking Creamery Company. 76 *Lees. Shields v.. 111 Licking Creamery Company, The. W. A. Lawrence & Son v. 76 *Lord & Taylor. H. Wolf & Sons v.. 176 *Lorimer and Lorimer and Western Electric Company, Assignee, v. Keith, *Mother's Macaroni Company. The Quaker Oats Company v. *Oneida Community, Limited. In re...... d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co. 151 178 19 Page. d Pope. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. 216 +Prints and Labels. In re. Opinion of the Attorney-General............. 95 *Quaker Oats Company, The, v. Mother's Macaroni Company... 108 R. *Thomas. Stewart v..... *Tim & Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co....... d Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung v. The Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Company..... Page. 180 183 344 U. *United States ex rel. Dunkley Company and Dunkley v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents..... 186 *United States ex rel. Trussed Concrete Steel Company v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents... 194 W. Wahrmann. Ex parte. *Waid. Freeman v. *Warrington v. Combs. Brantingham v.Combs. Brantingham v. Combs et al... *Waterbury Chemical Company v. Reed & Carnrick.. *Wentworth. Sutton, Steele, and Steele v..... Western Grocer Company. S. Galle & Company v d White Lily Mfg. Co. Horton Mfg. Co. v... *Wolf & Sons, H. v. Lord & Taylor...... Wood. Barber v d Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. Century Electric Co. v. Whiting-Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming Co **Woodward Company, The, v. Hurd et al.. *Woven Steel Hose & Rubber Company v. Keasbey & Mattison Company.. Y. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., The. Ex parte............... 67 196 189 125 210 32 267 285 34 176 1 366 102 81 SUBJECT MATTER INDEX. A. [Decisions of the Examiners-in-Chief are indicated by parallel lines (I), the opinion of the Attorney Abandoned experiments: Page. Invention made, tested, then thrown aside until manufactured by oppo- 37 Though first to conceive, because lacking in diligence not entitled to pri- 42 Abandonment of invention: Conditions which constitute bar to patent under section 4886 also bar 1 1 113 All elements should be found in same description or machine where they 327 Pending applications by patentee. d Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mfg. 285 Several applications, which subsequently become patents, pending at the 267 Testimony requisite to establish. dOttumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy 327 Appeal and error, matters reviewable under. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. 327 Appeals, lie from decisions not from reasons for. S. Galle & Company v. West- Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, time for filing record Article of manufacture, what is required for patentability. *In re McNeil.... |