SEC. 243. Commissioner and examiners may be examined. 244. Duty of the court. 245. Revision confined to reasons of appeal. 246. Appeal tried upon evidence be fore Commissioner. 247. Decision to govern further proceedings. 248. Validity of patent may be contested. 249. Rules of the court. 250. Cases in which an appeal does not lie. SEC. 251. Court cannot order patent to issue or consider amendments which have not been examined. 252. Decision binding only upon questions submitted. 253. Decisions followed as precedents. 254. Form of petition to the court. 255. Form of certificate of Commissioner. 256. Form of notice and reasons of appeal. 234. APPEAL TO THE COURT SITTING IN BANC.-If a party, except a party to an interference, is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, he may appeal to the supreme court of the District of Columbia sitting in banc. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 48.) 235. APPELLANT TO NOTIFY COMMISSIONER.-When an appeal is taken to the supreme court of the District of Columbia, the appellant shall give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and file in the Patent Office, within such time as the Commissioner shall appoint, his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth in writing. (Ib., § 49.) 236. PAPERS ACCOMPANYING NOTICE.-The mode of appeal from the decision of the office to the supreme court of the District of Columbia is by giving written notice thereof to the Commissioner; said notice being accompanied by the petition, addressed to the supreme court of the District of Columbia, by the reasons of appeal, and by a certified copy of all the original papers and evidence in the case. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.) 237. TIME OF FILING REASONS OF APPEAL.—The reasons of appeal must be filed within thirty days after notice of the decision appealed from. (Ib.) The filing of the "reasons of appeal" is essentially the appeal itself. (Greenough v. Clark, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1853.) And where the reasons of appeal are not filed within the time prescribed by the Commissioner of Patents, the right of appeal is lost. (Ib.) For an appeal cannot be made after the time limited in the notice of appeal. (Linton ex parte, ib., § 1850.) The Commissioner may, however, enlarge the time to file such reasons. (Greenough v. Clark, ib., 1853.) He may extend the time of appeal; it is a matter within his discretion. (Justice v. Jones, ib., 1859.) 238. REASONS OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE VAGUE AND UNSATISFACTORY.-The reasons of appeal should be so expressed that the court may gather from their language what is meant by them, but they need not be according to any technical formula. (Laidly v. James, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1860.) They should not be vague and unsatisfactory, but should involve some point affecting the decision of the Commissioner. (Winslow ex parte, ib., 1850.) And no assignment is sufficiently specific which does not with reasonable certainty point out the precise matter of alleged error. (Douglass v. Blackington, ib., 1859.) Thus, the following alleged reasons of appeal have been held to be insufficient: "That the decision of the Commissioner was inconsistent, as opposed to precedents which have governed before;" (Winslow ex parte, ib., 1850;) "that the decision of the Commissioner was in opposition to a clear apprehension of the merits of the case," (ib.;) or, "is against evidence or the weight of evidence;" (Douglass v. Blackington, ib., 1859;) "that the reasons assigned by the Commissioner for rejecting an application are irrelevant, and do not apply to the subject-matter." (Aiken ex parte, ib., 1850.) A reason of appeal, "that there was no evidence of any device or arrangement like that of the applicant," was held by Cranch, C. J., to be no ground for reversing the decision of the Commissioner, as he might have had other grounds than the evidence offered for the rejection. (Crooker ex parte, ib., 1850.) And when the reason of appeal was "that the decision of the Commissioner was adverse to the opinions of skillful and competent practical and scientific men, who were peculiarly qualified to judge as to the merits of the particular invention," it was held that this reason did not involve the question of novelty, and the opinion of such experts could not affect the question of novelty. (Winslow ex parte, ib.) An objection to the opinion of the Commissioner, as to the intention of an invention, cited as a cause of rejection, is not a good "reason of appeal." Whatever may have been his opinion, his decision may be correct. (Crooker ex parte, ib., 1850.) 239. FORMS FURNISHED BY THE OFFICE.-Printed forms of notice of appeal, of the reasons of appeal, and of the petition will be forwarded on request. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.) 240. APPELLANT TO FURNISH CERTIFIED COPIES.-The party appealing shall lay before the court certified copies of all the original papers and evidence in the case. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 51.) The original files in the case cannot be taken from the office to the court, but certified copies of the record and references, to be used as evidence, will be furnished at the usual rates. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.) 241. DUTIES OF COMMISSIONER.-On receiving notice. of the time and place of hearing such appeal, the Commissioner shall notify all parties who appear to be interested therein, in such manner as the court may prescribe. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 51.) And the Commissioner shall furnish it with the grounds of his decision, fully set forth in writing, touching all the points involved by the reasons of appeal. 242. REASONS OF COMMISSIONER MAY BE INSUFFICIENT, YET HIS DECISION CORRECT.-And the insufficiency of the Commissioner's reasons for rejecting an application is not in itself evidence that his decision is wrong, and is no cause for reversing it. (Aiken ex parte, Commissioners' Decisions, 1858.) And it is immaterial what reasons the Commissioner assigns for his decision; his reasons may be insufficient, and yet his decision be correct. (Ib.) The court is only required to examine the conclusions which the Commissioner may have arrived at in any given case, and not the process or reasons by which such conclusions may have been attained. (Spencer ex parte, Ib.) 243. COMMISSIONER AND EXAMINERS MAY BE EXAMINED.-At the request of any party interested, or of the court, the Commissioner and the examiners may be examined under oath, in explanation of the principles of the machine or other thing for which a patent is demanded. (Ib.) An examiner may be inquired of as to the nature and features of the invention under consideration and essential to the right claimed, and which may not be sufficiently set forth in the report of the Commissioner. (Seely ex parte, ib., 1853.) The officer of the Patent Office who may attend before the judge on an appeal is not considered as counsel for the Patent Office, or as an advocate of either of the parties litigant, He only attends for the purpose of explaining the decision of the Commissioner. (Perry v. Cornell, ib., 1847.) The language of the statute means, that the explanation authorized to be required of the Commissioner and examiners may be so full and clear an explanation of the principles of the thing, as to enable the judge duly to apply and weigh the evidence offered to support the issue in the case, and is not to be limited to a mere exposition of the terms used; and such explanations so given the judge is bound to respect as a part of the case. (Richardson v. Hicks, ib., 1854.) 244. DUTY OF THE COURT.-It shall be the duty of said court, on petition, to hear and determine such appeal, and to revise the decision appealed from in a summary way, on the evidence produced before the Commissioner, at such early and convenient time as the court may appoint, notifying the Commissioner of the time and place of hearing; and the revision shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 50.) 245. REVISION CONFINED TO POINTS SET FORTH IN REASONS OF APPEAL.-The jurisdiction of the court on appeal is confined to the reasons of appeal. (Arnold v. Bishop, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1841, ib., § 50; Smith v. Flick |