** Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S., 224.
Union Paper Bag Machine Company v. Advance Bag Co., 194 Fed.
Rep., 126
** Union Paper Collar Co. v. Leland, 1 Holmes, 427_. Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 10 Blatch., 109– ** Union Paper Collar Co. v. Van Deusen, 23 Wall., 530_
d Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros., 173 Fed. Rep., 288------- 18, 227 D United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus et al, 206 Fed. Rep., 570‒‒‒‒‒‒ ** United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U. S., 224_.
* United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Mfg. Co., 156 U. S., 552
** United States v. Fuller, 160 U. S., 593_-.
** United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S., 508_
** United States v. Hendee, 124 U. S., 309–.
United States v. Leu Huen, 118 Fed. Rep., 442. ** United States v. Mouat, 124 U. S., 303– ** United States v. Palmer, 128 U. Ş., 62–
** United States v. Rimer, 220 U. S., 547
United States ex rel. Morris v. Scott, 25 App. D. C., 88
Universal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Co., 82 Fed. Rep., 228_
4 Universal Winding Co. v. Willimantic Co., 92 Fed. Rep., 391
Vacuum Engineering Co. v. Dunn, 209 Fed. Rep., 219__.
• Victor Talking Machine Co. v. American Graphophone Co., 140 Fed. Rep., 860__.
Wagner et al. v. Meccano, Limited, 235 Fed. Rep., 890_.
"Wagner et al. v Meccano, Limited, 239 Fed. Rep., 901.
* Wayne County Preserving Co. v. Burt Olney Canning Co., 32 App. D. C., 279__.
Watrous Mfg. Co., E. L., v. American Hardware Mfg. Co., 161 Fed.
Rep., 362___
** Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S., 580_.
Weil and Grant. Ex parte, C. D., 1911, 249; 173 O. G., 1081_
Werk Co., M., v. Ryan Soap Co., 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. R., 122.
· Wertheimer et al. v. Batcheller Importing Co., 185 Fed. Rep., 850__ "Western Electric Co. v. Sperry Electric Co., 59 Fed. Rep., 295– Western Glass Co. v. Schmertz Glass Co., 185 Fed. Rep., 791Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 50 Fed. Rep., 662. "Westinghouse v. Chartiers Valley Gas Co., 43 Fed. Rep., 582---- 22, 23, 26, 228 Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 131 Fed. Rep., 90-.
Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 136 Fed. Rep., 599--
* Wickers v. McKee, 29 App. D. C., 4.
"Williams v. Mitchell, 106 Fed. Rep., 168_
'Williams Calk Co. v. Kemmerer, 145 Fed. Rep., 928_.
Williams, etc., Co. v. Neverslip, etc., Co., 136 Fed. Rep., 210---.
* Wilson and Forrest v. Ellis, 42 App. D. C., 552
Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman, C. D., 1918, 9; 248 O. G., 1003___.
Wise Soda Apparatus Co. v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker, 240 Fed. Rep., 733_
* Wolf & Sons, H., v. Lord & Taylor, 41 App. D. C., 514_.
** Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S., 87--
** Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U. S., 221.
Wood Manufacturing Company, John, 114 MS. Dec., 58...
* Yates v. Huson, 8 App. D. C., 93------.
[Opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior are indicated by a degree
mark (°); decisions of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the lettera;
of the United States District Courts by the letter b; of the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia by one star (*); of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals
by the letter d; of the Supreme Court of the United States by two stars (**).]
Abandoned experiments, without standing against award of priority
where invention was concealed or suppressed. *Rees v. White_____
Abandonment, combination of elements originally filed not to be aban-
doned or other elements substituted resulting in new idea of coöpera-
tion. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation---
Abandonment of applications, patent not necessarily invalid because
applicant failed to prosecute application within two years from filing,
Commissioner of Patents has authority to grant within jurisdiction
given by section 4894, Revised Statutes. a Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v.
Homer Brooke Glass Co____.
Renewal application granted by Commissioner rebuts presumption
of. Murphy v. Thompson____
Withholding from public by inventor of his invention for an indefinite
time for his own profit, in the eye of the law, tantamount to aban-
donment. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co_____
Abbreviation of names, "Fred" being an accepted Christian name former
decisions holding that affidavit should be required are overruled. Ex
parte Bowen
Adaptation or improvement of well-known devices, where there is no
substantial change in means or results, not invention. Wagner v.
Meccano Limited
Adoption and use, extent of protection flowing from. **United Drug
Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_.
Aggregation, not patentable because resulting in greater convenience and
economy. **Grinnell Washing Machine Company v. E. E. Johnson Com-
pany--
Amendments, insertions in description or drawing in amplification or
explanation do not invalidate a patent, especially where required by
the Patent Office. * General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co-
Anticipation, patent disclosing invention in controversy granted, after
filing of application therefor, on an earlier application does not estab-
lish anticipation. Ex parte Thomas___.
Appeal, case appealed through various tribunals of the Patent Office as
to whether a motion to dissolve be sustained or denied. *Field et al.
v. Colman_.
Delay in filing not excused except for good and sufficient reasons.
* In re Hitchcock___
From unanimous decisions of Patent Office, burden of proof upon ap-
plicant to prove error. * Lautenschlager v. Glass___.
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to
consider laches of applicant in interference between application and
patent. * Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman_.
XXII DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, 1918.
Application, joint filed, sole application filed later cannot be treated as
continuation of joint application. Ex parte Prioleau and Prioleau_‒‒‒‒
Attorneys, enlisted men not barred from practice before the Patent Office
by statute. Opinion Solicitor Department Interior_‒‒‒‒
Invention dedicated to the public or prosecuted for the Government,
person in naval or military service may act as attorney provided no
compensation is received. Opinion Solicitor Department Interior_
While under section 113, penal code, enlisted men may practice before
the Patent Office, commissioned officers doing so may not receive
compensation for their services. Opinion Solicitor Department of
Bar to patent, requisites of patent cited to establish prior invention. Ex
parte Thomas_
Cancelation of claims, invention differing from claims originally pre-
sented, relief from requirement may be by appeal to Examiners-in-
Chief, but not by petition. Ex parte Pearson___.
Requirements both for cancelation of claims and for division of ap-
plication to be referred to the Law Examiner. Ex parte Pearson__
Certiorari, appeal to the Supreme Court from the circuit court of appeals,
transcript of record filed for appeal treated as return to writ. ** United
Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company.
Change in degree, patent may not be declared invalid because difference
in degree only is shown, as in chemistry such difference might produce
revolutionary results. Corona Chemical Co. v. Latimer Chemical Co__
Claims, alternative not allowed, subsequent containing additional matter
may refer back to but a single combination. Ex parte Holst and
Leers
Disclosure in original specification, claims rejected, substitute claim
not be be read to cover withdrawn suggestions of variant structures
in order that such claim may be invalidated. Ruud Mfg. Co. v.
Long-Landreth-Schneider Co. et al.
Election of element of claim to system, applicant is estopped from
claiming that element per se. * In re Creveling----
Nebulous claims and allusions to alternatives with the purpose of
anticipating subsequent developments in the art, where more ex-
plicit statements would raise the question of new matter, con-
demned. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales
Corporation
Combination claim, claim referring to preceding claims plus additional
matter importing alternative meaning, depending upon which claim is
referred to, not in accord with long-established practice. Ex parte
Holst and Leers-----
Not infringed where no equivalent is substituted for an omitted
element. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒‒
Commercial success, not necessarily evidence of invention, but may result
from mechanical skill and commercial enterprise. ** Grinnell Washing
Machine Company v. E. E. Johnson Company.
Commissioner of Patents, discretionary action of not to be controlled by
mandamus. "United States of America, ex rel. Johnson, v. Ewing,
Commissioner of Patents----
Concealment of invention, where inventor puts aside his invention after
reduction to practice till he discovers the invention put upon the market
by his rival priority should be awarded to the more diligent inventor.
d Dreckschmidt v. Schaefer and Holmes_____
Concurrent decisions of the Patent Office and court should not be over-
turned by another court, especially where the members of the court are
not in accord. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting
Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing,
Commissioner of Patents)----
Of three tribunals of the Patent Office not to be disturbed "unless
manifest error has been committed." * Creveling v. Jepson_‒‒‒‒
Congress, power to legislate arising from authority to regulate foreign
commerce and commerce between the States and with Indian tribes.
** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company-
Construction of—
In view of state of the art of record, too broad. * In re Bech-
Limitation which gives them life not to be ignored for the pur-
pose of covering the disclosure of one of the parties. Gam-
meter v. Lister____
Mechanical skill only shown in view of the state of the art.
re Palmer, Jr.__.
Prior art shows device unpatentable. * In re Sunderland___
Rejected by reason of the state of the art. * In re McNeal-----
Review of record shows appealed claims, if predicated upon
disclosure, would have a meaning forced upon them robbing
them of their sense. Ex parte Creveling_.
To be construed as broadly as the state of the art permits, but
limitations are not to be ignored. Gammeter v. Lister____.
Unpatentable in view of state of the art. In re Sunderland___
Rule XXI, section 2, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
* In re Hitchcock_-_.
Rule 42. Ex parte Pearson__
Rule 75, Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office.
Ex parte Thomas__
Rule 130. Elsom v. Bonner and Golde___
Specifications and patents-
Kuch, No. 1,090,992, "Mercury-vapor lamp," valid, not affected
by award of priority to opponent in interference proceedings
as to certain claims, but not those finally allowed. 4 General
Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co-----
Validity and infringement. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v.
Adler
Statutes, Section 2, act of May 4, 1906. Ex parte Vacuum Oil Com-
pany-.
|