Particular Patents-Continued.
Baldwin, Reissue No. 13,542, (original No. 821,580,) "Acetylene-gas-
generating lamp," valid. **Abercrombie & Fitch Company and
Justrite Manufacturing Company v. Baldwin and John Simmons
Company--
Claim 4 construed, validity sustained, original invention not
broadened. ** Abercrombie & Fitch Company and Justrite Manu-
facturing Company v. Baldwin and John Simmons Company__.
Bayley, Design No. 49,593, "Electric-lighting fixture," void for lack of
invention. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co. et al.
Block, No. 1,061,353, "Arch-support," not infringed. Wonder Mfg.
Co. v. Block et al----.
Same, No. 1,127,349, "Support for arch of foot," anticipated. Won-
der Mfg. Co. v. Block et al_____.
Claim limited by its language and not infringed. Wonder Mfg.
Co. v. Block et al-----.
Brooke, No. 723,983, "Apparatus for cutting and distributing molten
materials," construed, valid, and infringed. Schram Glass Mfg.
Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co----
Burchenal, No. 1,135,351, Hydrogenation of oil," claims 1 and 2
unpatentable and not infringed. "Procter & Gamble Company v.
Berlin Mills Company---
Hornby, No. 1,079,245, perforated plate. "Wagner v. Meccano
Limited.
Kuch, No. 1,090,992, "Mercury-vapor lamp," patentable improvement
and infringed. General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric
Co-
Luellen, No. 1,032,557, void, no invention. Individual Drinking Cup
Co. et al v. Public Service Cup Co------
Same, No. 1,081,508, certain claims valid and infringed, claim 16
valid, but not infringed. Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v.
Public Service Cup Co.----
Macbeth, Reissue No. 13,766, (original No. 1,097,600,) process for
making glass. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co_-
Phillips, No. 950,402, gearing device, void, being merely an aggrega-
tion of old elements. ** Grinnell Washing Machine Company v.
E. E. Johnson Company__.
Plym, No. 852,450, store-front construction, valid and infringed. De-
troit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒‒
Same, No. 860,150, construction of glass plates, not infringed.
troit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co----.
Ruud, No. 853,738, shows invention and has not been anticipated.
Ruud Mfg. Co. v. Long-Landreth-Schneider Co. et al.
Schade, No. 819,461, "Loose-leaf binder," void for lack of invention.
Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co------
Spengler, No. 1,074,907, valid and not anticipated by the earlier Clay
patents. United States Metal Cap & Seal Co. v. American Key-
less Kap Corporation et al_-_-
Stenz, No. 1,047,849, limited and as limited not infringed. Simplex
Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al------
Patents reward of a tested contribution to the art, not of a pregnant sur-
mise or a promising hypothesis. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell
Motor Sales Corporation--‒‒‒‒
For improvement, invention considered with reference to prior
patents as to advance, claims immaterial except to clear obscurity.
4 General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co----
Granted on an invention in controversy after the filing of an appli-
cation for the same invention, but on an earlier application, may
establish bar of prior invention. Ex parte Thomas---
Granting of presumes patentable invention. Corona Chemical Co. v.
Latimer Chemical Co--‒‒‒‒‒
Valid and infringed, unfair competition may be included in account-
ing for damages and profits. 'Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer
Mfg. Co------
Patent law must consider means as well as product,
""
means suggesting
meritorious human effort, reward of which is the object of the law.
* Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co., et al...------
Policy of to secure to the public benefit of inventions after expiration of
fixed term. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co-‒‒‒‒‒‒
Patent Office tribunals, concurrent decisions upheld unless there is mani-
fest error. *Rees v. White___.
Concurrent judgment not overturned except for manifest error. * In
re Kohler
Reversal of uniform decisions obtained only upon a very clear case
of error. * Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant,
deceased, v. Johnson___.
Patentability, design must possess different configuration from other de-
signs. Ex parte Kaupmann___
Successful imitation of product not necessarily patentable novelty.
Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al_-_.
Patented article, contract fixing price void, cannot be enforced by suit
for infringement. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Grapho-
phone and Columbia Graphophone Company__
Patentee not first in field, scope of invention limited by language of claim.
Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al______
Popular recognition and demand for article by those who use it matters
to be considered in favor of invention. Globe Knitting Works v.
Segal et al______.
Practice in the Patent Office, as stated in former decisions, defined. Ex
parte Holst and Leers___.
Preamble to claims, qualifying clause not to be ignored because it does
not describe an element, but should be read on all following elements.
4 Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co-----
Preliminary statement, question of amendment as to whether device con-
sidered first as model was, in fact, reduction to practice to be postponed
to final hearing. Aberle v. Borchert v. Schmidt v. Gaisman____
Priority of invention, properly awarded. * Bijur v. Rushmore_.
* Cragg v. Strickland____
Priority of invention, properly awarded-Continued.
*Hamilton v. Dunn_-_
* Hendler v. Hansen_
*Henggi v. Dallmeyer_.
Hill v. Allen----.
* Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, deceased, v.
Johnson____
Where one inventor did nothing with an invention until others en-
tered the field, priority was properly awarded to the more diligent
parties. * Dreckschmidt v. Shaefer and Holmes____
Publication by inventor of device on which he seeks patent more than two
years prior to application precludes patent. Wagner v. Meccano
Limited
Question whether construction embodies issue, not raised before Patent
Office, not before the court.
Redeclaration of interference not to be compelled by nandamus
*Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents..
Reduction to practice, test should show that device will give desired
result. * Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, de-
ceased, v. Johnson
Reissue, application delayed for long period, excuse for such delay must
be out of the ordinary. Ex parte Schneider-----
Intervening rights presumed where application is delayed for a long
period. Ex parte Schneider____.
With broader claims properly refused where there was a delay in
making application of more than two years. Ex parte Schneider__
Renewal of application, date of filing relates back to date of filing of
original application. * Murphy v. Thompson---.
Res adjudicata, question of not reviewed on mandamus. * United States,
ex rel. International Money Machine Company, v. Newton_-_-
Right to make claims. Gammeter v. Lister..
Estopped by delay, former decision cited. *Kane v. Podlesak____.
Rightful issue of patent, question not to be raised on appeal. * Lauten-
schlager v. Glass__
Sale of patented article at fixed price under contract not within monopoly
of patent law and cannot be enforced as infringement.
**Boston
Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Company and Columbia
Graphophone Company---
Scope of patent, where application for patent was filed prior to that for
patent in suit it is prima facie part of prior art and its limitations of
scope of patent in suit may be considered. Jackson Cushion Spring
Co. v. Adler_____
Second application, filed after expiration of time for second renewal of
first application, cannot be considered a continuation of the first appli-
cation. Barrett v. Hart______
Specific claims, to be interpreted in the light of the general disclosure.
*Burt v. Coats and Cameron. Coats & Cameron v. Burt____
Specifications, addressed to those skilled in the art. * Burt v. Coats and
Cameron. Coats and Cameron v. Burt----
· Suits for infringement. "Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler_
Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co----
Costs in each case disposed of on its own merits, in the discretion
of the court. Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al. v. Public Serv-
ice Cup Co____.
Date of filing application shown by officially printed copy accepted
as correct in absence of objection. Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co--
On appeal from an interlocutory injunction appellate court will go no
further than to ascertain if court below abused its discretion in
granting. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al..
Terminology. Anticipation and prior invention distinguished. Rule 75
construed and applied. Ex parte Thomas___.
Trade-marks, act of February 20, 1905, applies to all registrations, in-
cluding those under the law of 1881. Hudnut v. Phillips v Mack____
Act provides for registration of actual not fictitious marks.
Adoption and use of mark does not project rights of protection in
advance of extension of trade, neither will it give territorial rights
in localities where thereafter it may seem desirable to extend the
trade. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_
Adverse decision in interference, cancelation proper. *Great Bear
Spring Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company__.
Appealing under provisions of trade-mark statutes is, in effect, assert-
ing their validity. * Fulton Water Works Company v. Bear Lithia
Springs Company---
Applying to goods of different class of merchandise. * Chas. A.
Schieren Company v. Whittemore Bros. Corporation and Sullivan_
Cancelation may follow as an incident to interference decision in a
registration under the law of 1881. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack_
Certain features, though disclaimed, should not be removed from the
drawings. Ex parte L. C. Chase & Company-..
Class of merchandise, ice-cream cones and dairy products not the
same class of goods. * Borden's Condensed Milk Company v. Eagle
Manufacturing Company___.
Commissioner of Patents may refuse to grant monopoly in mark both
descriptive and containing the common trade-name of similar arti-
cles in a class of merchandise, confusion of the public being likely
to result. * In re Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc_-_.
Construction of section 13, act 1895, trade-mark statutes. * Fulton
Water Works Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company__.
Decree as to infringement based on use on one class of goods con-
clusive as to use on another of same descriptive properties.
** Rock Spring Distilling Company and Rosenfield v. W. A. Gaines
& Company.
Between two parties pleaded in bar to suit on same mark against
another defendant. **Rock Spring Distilling Company and
Rosenfield v. W. A. Gaines & Company---.
Descriptive matter objected to must be eliminated, disclaimer not
sufficient. * In re Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc---
Descriptive terms not registrable under the act because of long use
except under the ten-years clause. "Hercules Powder Company
v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents___
Descriptive word not registrable unless secondary meaning has been
acquired, indicating product of particular manufacturer. Detroit
Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co.‒‒
Not subject to appropriation. M. Werk Co. v. Grosberg et al__
Existence of not essential to right of action for unfair competition.
Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co‒‒‒‒‒
Footwear of leather and of rubber so closely related that public
should not be required to discriminate between goods put out by
one of two users of the same mark. * Boston Rubber Shoe Com-
pany v. Abramowitz_____
For a series of literary publications must be arbitrary, not the name
of one of the series. * In re The Page Company....
Function to designate goods of particular trader and protect him
against sale of another's product as his. **United Drug Com-
pany v. Theodore Rectanus Company__.
Interference and cancelation, registration under law of 1881 may be
canceled under Act of February 20, 1905. Hudnut v. Phillips
v. Mack
Interference between applicant and registrant, decisions adverse to
registrant, his registration may be canceled. Hudnut v. Phillips
v. Mack____
Law not intended to conflict with copyright law or extend its opera-
tion, the owner enjoys exclusive rights as long as the copyright
continues, and upon its expiration privileges expire and use of
descriptive name becomes publici juris. In re The Page Com-
Manufacturer doing its legal duty in distinguishing its product not
responsible for substitution by tricky retailers. M. Werk Co.
v. Grosberg et al.
Mark adopted and used for many years, registered under State laws
and the act of 1881, though not under act of 1905, use confined to
certain locality, adopted and used by another for similar goods in
distant locality, first user estopped from setting up continued use
as infringement. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus
Company.
Mark referring to contents rather than to wrapper not registrable for
wrapper. Ex parte Adams____
Method of applying mark immaterial so long as knowledge of origin or
source of manufacture of goods was conveyed to purchaser. * Rice-
Stix Dry Goods Company v. The Schwarzenbach, Huber Company__
84150°-19-3
|