patent, which gives you title to it, purely and simply but which moreover gives you the legal right to defend yourself at law against any infringement. The tribunals will judge sovereignly if your discovery is new, suitable for industrial purposes and patentable; they will say if it has been infringed. But I, the government, will not guarantee anything personally.

Other legislations (especially the German law) say to him: "You claim to have made a patentable invention. I have examined the value of your claim and I believe it to be well founded but I am not certain of it. I give you a patent which will allow you to defend this claim at law. The tribunals will weigh sovereignly the validity of your patent and the acts of infringement which you believe yourself obliged to prosecute. But I, the government, do not guarantee anything personally.'

Thus the preliminary examination does not give the inventor the guarantee of the State concerning the validity of the patent.

What then are its advantages?

It often discovers an anticipation, at any rate. If no anticipation is discovered, it gives the inventor a presumption of novelty that is better than nothing, and is often of great practical use.

Its disadvantages, according to the author, are of two kinds :

First, experience has shown that the inventor does not always succeed in making himself understood and is sometimes victim of an error which involves rejection of his application or such limiting of his patent that it is without value to him.

Secondly, there is the obligation imposed on the inventor in all countries where the examination is in operation to end his description with definite claims specifying in a limitating way the points for which he demands legal protection. This is of course necessary for giving the examiner definite basis for his priority search. On the other hand, this condition works a great hardship on the inventor as he does not always see at the he

ginning the exact consequences of his invention and often considers accessory points essential and vice versa. Experience has shown that many patents thus granted are without practical value in infringement cases even when the description itself contained an invention of real value; the latter although described not having been definitely claimed and thus being liable to free reproduction by third persons.

In considering the method of granting patents without examination as practised in France: the granting of the title does not give any indication as to whether the invention is new or not. This is of course a disadvantage but in comparison with this single disadvantage there are several advantages mentioned.

(a) The patent is always granted and it is granted entire, that is to say as it was applied for.

(b) The patent has no claims and before the tribunals in an infringement case, the inventor can plead a device described in any part of his description as long as said device is clearly described and new and patentable. It is thus before the tribunal and in presence of the nfringement that the patentee makes his claim and he has every facility to make at this time a suitable one so long as it is drawn from the description of his patent. He can profit from the experience which he has acquired and which has shown him the interesting parts of the invention.

To illustrate the working of this system, citation is made of the patent for direct drive for Louis Renault automobiles which in France furnished the inventor with a revenue of several millions of francs after the decisions of the Seine Tribunal and of the Court of Paris defined the invention in such a way-and without departing from the scope of the description-that nearly the whole automobile industry was tributary of said French patent: while in Germany the patent was granted to Renault with a limiting claim referring to a structural detail without practical interest; the invention completely protected in France was in fact without protection

in Germany as a result of normal operation of the methods of granting patents in these two countries.

(c) A third advantage of the method of granting without preliminary examination is a result of the fact that the inventor is not required to discuss the validity of his invention until there is conflict with a third person, nearly always at the time of an infringement case; at this time his invention is being fully worked, he knows its value and importance and he does not hesitate at expense and efforts necessary for energetically defending his patent before the tribunals, experts, the court of appeals, if necessary, and even before the Supreme Court. With the preliminary examination system, however, the inventor is always obliged to discuss the validity of his patent, directly after making application for it, that is to say at a time when he is entirely ignorant of the industrial success which his invention may have: in presence of the difficulties, complications and expenses of the preliminary examination he often becomes discouraged and resigns himself to abandoning his application and allowing his invention to become public property.

The author is of the opinion that the new optional examination system would afford advantages over any of the systems now in operation, while retaining the essential ones of the present French method.

Just as at present the patents would be applied for without claims at the end of his description so that he could use any part of his invention in case of infringement action.

Of course inventors desiring a preliminary examination would have to file claims for allowing the examiners to make an exact search, but as in the proposed method the application will never be rejected, the examination being only for the purpose of information for the applicant and possibly third parties, the inventor will be able to use his whole description in infringement suits.

In comparison with the German or analogous systems, the optional examination method would offer the advantage of extending to only a small number of patents, so that only a limited number of examiners would be

sufficient. Some inventors, after filing applications, will find by inquiry in industrial centers that their ideas are not new and will not need to go to the expense of the preliminary examination. Of the inventions whose novelty is doubtful, a part will be abandoned after the first attempts at exploitation because it will be shown that they are not of importance and thus for them the question of examination will not be brought up. Finally among the other patent applications, it would appear that their examination would be requested only when an infringement suit was expected or when the sale of the patent was negotiated.

CURRENT COURT DECISIONS.

CALLAHAN v. NESBIT (Johnson Service Co., Intervener.) C. C. A.-3 Woolley C. J. 1 F. (2d) 75.

Callahan patent 1,390,758, for thermostatic control of dampers, held invalid.

Dedication to Public.-Evidence in the suit proved that the invention in the patent sued on was in use more than two years prior to the filing of the application as a result of the following circumstances. Walsh, an architect for the city of Waterbury asked the Peerless Co., with whom Callahan was associated, for a heating lay-out for school class rooms. After a certain amount of cor respondence Walsh called for bids on specifications covering precisely the structures later installed in Waterbury. The plaintiff maintained that the Waterbury use was purely experimental. However, the evidence did not show whose specifications were used in the bidding. If not those of Callahan they formed no part of Callahan's invention and became prior art to him. Even if they were Callahan's he permitted their publication for promiscuous bidding of heating contractors. He thereby disclosed his invention to the public and the public adopted it, paid for it and used it. Nothing was done by Callahan during the two year period before filing his application

which indicated an experimental use. While he inspected the units from time to time, yet to all visible intents and purposes he, made an outright sale. Against such a business transaction a secret purpose to test the invention, one presently existing or later arising in the mind of the inventor, cannot prevail. There must be evidence of the need and of the fact of experimentation to bring it within the exception of the law of prior use. The Court concluded there was no such evidence and held the patent invalid for public use.

FEZZEY v. BEMIS BRO. BAG CO. C. C. A.-8 Scott Dist. J. 1 F. (2 d) 116.

Fezzey patent 1,212,128, for compartment package for mailing purposes, held invalid.

Invention. The patent was for a double compartment mailing device whereby an envelope designed to carry or inclose a letter of explanation is attached to a fabric bag, wherein an article is placed for transportation through the mails. One end of the bag is closed with a draw string, and into the other end is sewed an envelope with such reinforcement as is necessary to prevent tearing. The prior art showed the Economy mailing bag, a bag identical to plaintiff's with an address tag inserted and sewed into the end in substantially the same manner as was the envelope in plaintiff's device. Just prior to the plaintiff's filing the Post Office Department had authorized the attachment of a sealed envelope to a parcel post package. The plaintiff was aware of this authorization when he filed his case. The prior art showed that the fabric bag was old, the envelope was old and the knowledge that an envelope might be combined with the parcel post package was given applicant by the Post Office Department. The only thing left for applicant to devise was the manner of attaching the envelope to the bag. This however applicant had in the Economy mail bag with the address tag sewn into the end. The transfer of a device from one art to another does not amount to invention, where it performs the same func