Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

J.

Page.

34

John L. Whiting-J. J. Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming

Co...... *Johnson v. Martin. d Jones v. Evans...

162 262

89 102 202

K. Karl, Prinz zu Löwenstein. Ex parte... * Keasbey & Mattison Company.' Woven Steel Hose & Rubber Company v.... * Keith, Erickson, and Erickson v. Lorimer and Lorimer and Lundquist.. *Keith, Erickson, and Erickson and Lundquist. Lorimer and Lorimer and

Western Electric Company, assignee, v.. Kindervater. Henderson and Cantley v.

Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. of America v. Story & Clark Co. et al...

202

61 246

L.

Lawrence & Son, W. A., v. The Licking Creamery Company..
*Lees. Shields v.
Licking Creamery Company, The. W. A. Lawrence & Son v..
*Lord & Taylor. H. Wolf & Sons v.
*Lorimer and Lorimer and Western Electric Company, Assignee, v. Keith,

Erickson, and Erickson and Lundquist....
*Lundquist. . Keith, Erickson, and Erickson v.

76 111

76 176

202 202

M. McCollum. Ex parte..... *McKeen. Bettendorf v...... *McNeil. In re... Manson v. Hutchison.. d Mark et al. National Tube Co. v...... *Martin. Johnson v. *Merrill. In re... Mission Brewing Company. Ex parte.. Moody v. Colby... *Moody v. Colby. Morgan v. Taylor v. Hanson... *Mother's Macaroni Company. The Quaker Oats Company v. Mumford. Ex parte...... Myers. Steel and Steel v.

70 173 141

33 310 162 113 91 15

106

90 108 84 74

N.

dNational Tube Co. v. Mark et al

310

0. *Ochs. In re..... *O'Connor. In re.. Ogden. Frickey v.... *Oneida Community, Limited. In re.. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy Box Car Loader Co.....

151 178

19 107 327

P.

Pease. Ex parte..
*Pein. In re.....
Perkins v. Fortescue..
*Peters and Dement. Hopkins v.

48 167

88 116 *Tait. Schmidt v..

d Pope. Cincinnati Traction Co. v..
Prints and Labels. In re. Opinion of the Attorney-General.

Page.
216
95

Q.

*Quaker Oats Company, The, v. Mother's Macaroni Company.

108

R.

Taylor v. Hanson. Morgan v...

Thomas v. Stewart...

214

90

51

Page. 180 183

344

*Thomas. Stewart v..
*Tim & Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co.......
d Treibacher Chemische Werke Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung v. The
Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Company....

U.
*United States ex rel. Dunkley Company and Dunkley v. Ewing, Commissioner

of Patents.... *United States ex rel. Trussed Concrete Steel Company v. Ewing, Commis

sioner of Patents.

186

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 Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. Century Electric Co.v. d White Lily Mig. Co. Horton Mfg. Co. v...... Whiting-Adams Co. v. Rubber and Celluloid Harness Trimming Co *Wolf & Sons, H. v. Lord & Taylor... ||Wood. Barber v ...... **Woodward Company, The, v. Hurd et al... *Woven Steel Hose & Rubber Company v. Keasbey & Mattison Company..

67 196 189 125 210

32 267 285

34 176

1 366 102

Y.

Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., The. Ex parte.....

81

SUBJECT MATTER INDEX.

(Decisions of the Examiners-in-Chies are indicated by parallel lines (I), the opinion of the Attorney

General by a double dagger (1), decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by
one star (*), of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by the letter (d), and of the Supreme Court
of the United States by two stars (**).)

Page.

37

42

1

1

113

327

A.
Abandoned experiments:

Invention made, tested, then thrown aside until manufactured by oppo-

nent. Brown v. Campbell.......
Though first to conceive, because lacking in diligence not entitled to pri-

ority. Brenizer v. Robinson...
Abandonment of invention:

Conditions which constitute bar to patent under section 4886 also bar

under section 4897. ||Barber v. Wood....
Withholding invention from market knowing rival to be in field, neglecting

to renew forfeited application, or to reassert claim for patent until near

end of time allowed by law amounts to. || Barber v. Wood...
Affidavits filed while case was on appeal to the Commissioner and not considered

by him will not be considered by the court. *In re Merrill...
Anticipation:

All elements should be found in same description or machine where they

attain the same results by same means. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co.

v. Christy Box Car Loader Co......
Pending applications by patentee. d Horton Mfg. Co. v. White Lily Mig.

Co..........
Several applications, which subsequently become patents, pending at the

same time, each describing inventions claimed in the others, none of the
applications claiming inventions claimed in any of the others—applica-
tions and patents cannot be used to anticipate each other. d Century

Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.......
Testimony requisite to establish. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v. Christy

Box Car Loader Co......
Appeal and error, matters reviewable under. d Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co.

v. Christy Box Car Loader Co.....
Appeals, lie from decisions not from reasons for. S. Galle & Company v. West-

ern Grocer Company...
Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, time for filing record

extended by Commissioner only before expiration of limit of time. *Schmidt

v. Tait...
Article of manufacture, what is required for patentability. *In re McNeil...
Assignment, entire interest carries right to prosecute to exclusion of inventor,

even if there be no request to issue patent to assignee. Ex parte Hill and
Hill..

285

267

327

327

32

214
141

86

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »