Section 4915, Revised Statutes. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car
Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents,
(substituted for Ewing, Commissioner of Patents) -
Subdivision 4, section 4920, Revised Statutes. Lemley v. Dobson-
Evans Co
**United Drug Company v. Theo-
Trade-Mark acts, 1881 and 1905.
dore Rectanus Company-
Trade-mark statutes. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack_.
Contract to sell patented article at fixed price void because contrary
to general law. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone
Company and Columbia Graphophone Company--.
Contractor not protected in infringement by act of June 25, 1910.
coni Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. Simon___.
Contributory infringement by Government not an illegal interference
with rights of patentee. **Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of
Correctness of description not material if mark describes like goods of
others. Ex parte Brady-----
Costs in equity cases within the discretion of the court. Wagner v.
Meccano Limited
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, appeals from the Commis-
sioner of Patents may be entertained, first, in applications for patents
or reissues twice rejected by Examiner, then by Examiners-in-Chief,
and then the Commissioner, and, second, in interferences where pri-
ority has been awarded. In re Carvalho____
Failure by practitioners to observe rules necessary to the orderly
and expeditious despatch of business not to be excused except for
cogent reasons. * In re Hitchcock__--_-
No jurisdiction to entertain appeals in interference cases except
from a judgment of priority. *Field et al. v. Colman____
Decision of the Commissioner of Patents relative to delay in prosecution
of application not reviewable by Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia. * In re Carvalho_____
Decisions of the Patent Office tribunals unanimous, nothing tending to
show error, doubts not permissible. * In re Kohler____
Delay in payment of patent fees, condition arising from a state of war.
Ex parte Philipp and Schmidt__.
Depositions, costs of, allowed by courts, equity rule 58 cited.
Designs, imitation not sufficient, invention must be shown. Ex parte
Kaupmann
Patentability determined by difference in configuration from other
designs. Ex parte Kaupmann_-_-
To be viewed as a whole, as the effect is optical. Bayley & Sons,
Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co. et al___
Determination as to whether suits arising under price-fixing contracts
come under patent law, within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of
appeals. ** Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Com-
pany and Columbia Graphophone Company.
Disclosure of invention must be definite. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v.
Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation---.
Must make nature of purported invention clear to persons competent
to understand. * Henggi v. Dallmeyer___.
Discretionary action of the Commissioner of Patents not to be controlled
by mandamus. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents_
Double patents, two inventions, a mechanical contrivance and an orna-
mental attachment united therewith, a mechanical patent only obtained,
a design patent may be procured within the two-year period without
violation of rule against double patenting. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v.
Standart Art Glass Co. et al.
Equivalents, test, whether a journeyman in the art would turn from
one element to the other readily, sure of the result. H. Ward Leon-
ard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation‒‒‒‒
Exclusive use, security, and protection depend upon the laws of the sev-
eral States. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company-
Failure to set up earlier patent in answer, in suit for infringement, not
objection to admission as evidence of state of art and aid in construc-
tion of claims. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Foreign registrant must have agent in this country on whom process may
be served. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack_____
Former decision, rehearing refused. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car
Heating Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents___.
Government contractor not vested with governmental powers by act of
June 25, 1910. ** William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Com-
pany v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company and Curtis
Marine Turbine Company of the United States____
Grant of patent prima facie presumption of patentability.
Co. v. Block et al.
Improvement, device may infringe generic claim and yet be an improve-
ment thereon without inconsistency. General Electric Co. v. Cooper
Hewitt Electric Co---_.
Infringement admitted, extent of, will not be reviewed by appellate
court on appeal from interlocutory injunction, abuse of discretion by
lower court only, will be ascertained. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Not avoided by uniting in one part two elements which still reach the
same result in the same way. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer
Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒
Prior patent admissible as evidence of infringement, even though
only a paper patent, with no showing of use. d Wonder Mfg. Co.
Will not be held in combination used by one party differing from that
in original application of other party by the substitution of an
element not an equivalent. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell
Motor Sales Corporation____
Interference, applicant failing to assert rights to claims of patent for
more than a year estopped unless delay shown to have been unavoid-
able.
* Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman___
Claim copied within a year of issuance of patent, refused admission,
soon after, but more than a year after issuance of patent, presented
again in a second application, applicant not estopped to make
claim. Barrett v. Hart____
Claims of reissued patent copied two months after issuance and more
than two years after original within rule of estoppel, basis of claims
being original patent. *Kane v. Podlesak____.
Construction of claims, incorporation of additional figure and sub-
stitute specification. *Ficklen v. Baker_.
Construction of the issue. *Hendler v. Hansen..
Declaration of cannot be controlled by mandamus. * United States,
ex rel. International Money Machine Company, v. Newton---
Disclosure of invention in British provisional specification.
v. Coats and Cameron. Coats and Cameron v. Burt______
Dissolved, ground of failure of earlier application to disclose the in-
vention, question not to be reviewed on ex parte appeal from de-
cision in earlier application. * In re Creveling--.
Each element appearing in the counts regarded as material to the
invention covered thereby. * Bijur v. Rushmore___.
Estoppel, four parties to interference, judgment for fourth party,
afterward patent is issued to third party on different subject-mat-
ter, later first party, copying claims from this patent, cannot be re-
fused these claims on ground of estoppel. * In re Martin__.
Judgment on the record. *Elsom v. Bonner___
One party not disclosing subject-matter of interference in application,
priority of invention properly awarded to his opponent. Gammeter
v. Lister
Patent and application, right to make claims. *Ficklen v. Baker__
In re Creveling----
Right to make claims. Creveling v. Jepson_-_-
Rule 130 not considered applicable where junior party of three-party
interference questions right of one of the parties to make claims
but not that of the other party. * Elsom v. Bonner and Golde____
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.lv/books/content?id=TFILAAAAYAAJ&hl=lv&output=html_text&pg=PR27&img=1&zoom=3&q=Commissioner+of+Patents&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0eNZ_6jtIJdxepIwvMxaT91rWeEA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=92,142,265,20)
Second interference, same parties, same subject, same testimony,
questions of law and fact res adjudicata, appeal useless. * Thomp-
son v. Storrie__
Where applicant is chargeable with laches, interference should be de-
clared only when prima facie case overcoming charge is made out.
Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman__
Invention, doubts as to, should be resolved in favor of applicant.
* In re Kohler
In mechanical combinations consists in selecting from elements shown
those which constitute an independent entity, serviceable and not
before known. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales
Corporation
Question of inventive advance over disclosure of prior patent in speci-
fication and drawing, claims seeming to show later form, must be
interpreted in light of later device, because of the generic language
of the claims. General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co-
Where an inventor devises a certain article of ornamental appear-
ance and also a mechanical contrivance united therewith, there are
two inventions. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co.
et al
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, appeal
on patentability. * Elsom v. Bonner and Golde_.
Jurisdiction of the courts, patent not infringed, parties to suit citizens of
same State, Federal courts no jurisdiction over cause of action for un-
fair competition because of sale of infringing article. Detroit Show-
case Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒
Suits for unfair competition, no diversity of citizenship.
Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co.‒‒‒‒‒‒
Jurisdiction of tribunal not to be denied by party who has submitted to
it. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents-
Labels, public insignia not registrable. Ex parte The Biddle Corporation_
Labels and prints, must be descriptive of goods. Ex parte Taylor, Clapp
& Beall____.
Not descriptive merely because color scheme is white. Ex parte
Taylor, Clapp & Beall..
Laches, jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
on appeal, application and patent, delay in copying claims of patent.
*Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman_-_-
May be explained if not exceeding period covered by statute. Win-
troath v. Chapman and Chapman___.
License for the use of patented inventions by the United States not given
by the act of June 25, 1910, provisions of the act being expressly against
such effect. ** William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Com-
pany v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company and Curtis Ma-
rine Turbine Company of the United States-----
Limitation of claims, force of in establishing prior invention. Ex parte
Thomas_-_-
To what cases applicable. Ex parte Thomas_.
Mandamus, Commissioner of Patents not to be compelled to reopen inter-
ference by. *Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents___
Discretionary action of the Commissioner of Patents not controllable
thereby. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents.
Does not lie where no legal injury is shown. United States of
America, ex rel. Johnson, v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents-----
May not control declaration of interference, nor will question of
res adjudicata be reviewed on. * United States, ex rel. Inter-
national Money Machine Company, v. Newton----.
Not to be issued to an administrative officer except for refusal to
perform ministerial duties. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents__
Meaning of claims clear, consideration of prior art not necessary.
* Creveling v. Jepson----
Modification of Commissioner's decision without rehearing, if right, not
reversible error. * Creveling v. Jepson----.
Monopoly, right to preserve as trade-secret for profit and right to protect
under patent laws inconsistent. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General
Rights cannot be extended by contract to impose restraint upon
future sales. ** Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone
Company and Columbia Graphophone Company.
Name of applicant, as signed an accepted name though also an abbre-
viation, no affidavit as to full first name should be required. Ex
parte Bowen
New use of old devices, concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tri-
bunals and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. "Ed-
ward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton,
Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing, Commissioner of
Patents)
Oaths, no power vested in diplomatic or consular officers in charge of
interests of United States to administer in enemy alien countries.
Opinion of Solicitor of Department of Interior____
Officers and enlisted men, under section 113, Penal Code, enlisted men
may practice before Patent Office, but commissioned officers doing so
may not receive compensation for services. 'Opinion Solicitor Depart-
ment Interior____.
Official act within constitutional jurisdiction, court has no power to undo
by writ of mandamus. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents_-_-
Opposition to registration properly sustained where the user of the mark
might profit by the reputation of another. *The Thomas Manufactur-
ing Company v. The Aeolian Company.
Particular patents, Adler and Sullivan, No. 991,187, "Spring cushions for
seats and backs of automobiles," valid and not infringed. Jackson
Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler_
|