plaintiff urged the long acquiescence by the public in the original patent and the utility of the process exemplified by its extensive application in the repair of roads as being persuasive of patentability. Held of no effect.

In support of this adverse conclusion, the court relied upon the fact that there were other patents to the same patentee which were influential in staving off infringers, which patents had since expired. The court further remarked that the fact that the reissue was applied for within a few weeks after the expiration of those pillar patents "may not be wholly without significance". As for utility, it was correctly stated, citing Brady Brass Co. vs. Ajax Metal Co. 160 Fed. Rep. 84, that "while utility is essential to patentability, yet patentability is not an inevitable consequence of utility". M. C. R.

OWEN v. PERKINS OIL WELL CEMENTING CO.; C. C. A. Ninth Dist. Rudkin C. J. 2 Fed. (2d) 247.

Refusal to dissolve preliminary injunction, held not abuse of discretion. Fifteen months after the granting of a preliminary injunction in a suit for the infringement of a patent, and after the defendant had been adjudicated in contempt for violation thereof, the district court refused to dissolve the preliminary injunction. An appeal was then taken to the circuit court from the interlocutory order or decree refusing to dissolve the injunction.

The appellant contends that the methods employed by him does not infringe. These contentions were fully considered by court below on the hearing of the application for a preliminary injunction, and on the hearing of the proceedings for contempt.

The question before the court on appeal is not the correctness of the lower court but did the court abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, or in refusing to dissolve it, and is the proof of abuse clearly established

The granting of an interlocutory injunction is within the authority of the court of original jurisdiction, and

where that court has not departed from the rules and principles of equity established for its guidance, its orders in this regard may not be reversed by the appellate court without clear proof that it abused its discretion, as can only appear from an obvious misunderstanding of the facts, or a palpable misapplication of well settled rules of law on the part of the trial judge. A pendente lite injunctional order will not be reversed unless there was an abuse of discretion. The charge of infringement under facts differ little if at all from the facts before the lower court, and under these circumstances it is idle to claim such abuse of discretion as to warrant the interference of an appellate court. J. W. Q.

POLYGON PRODUCTS CO. v. KANT RUST PROD UCTS CORP. C. C. A. Third Dist. Buffington, C. J. 2 Fed. (2nd) 245.

Abbott patent 1,333,363 for compound for penetrating interior corrosion, held not anticipated by Acheson patents 966,636 and 1,030,372.

By reference to opinion reported in 292 Fed. 571, the Abbott patent made a novel, useful and patentable inven tion in the combination of a colloid, a lubricant and a penetrant. The inventions of Abbott and of Acheson solved different problems and are in different spheres. Acheson's first patent was for a lubricant for lessening or avoiding friction between moving working parts. Abbotts problem dealt with interlocked surfaces to allow temporary detachment between parts intended to be functionally locked together. The infringing act of the defendant consisted in mixing the Acheson oildag as a colloid with a penetrant and lubricant to form the com bination Abbott disclosed.

A petition of the Acheson Oildag Company presented subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid opinion for leave to intervene, and for rehearing on the ground that the Abbott patent was void as anticipated by the Acheson

patents and on the ground that this opinion if allowed to stand might seriously affect the sale by petitioner of its oildag was dismissed due to the holding of validity of the Abbott patent and since there is no interference with the marketing of oildag by the Acheson Company. J. W. Q.

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY.

February 28, 1925.

The Executive Committee met in the Law Library at 4:30 p. m. on February 28, 1925, upon call of the president. There were present: Stringham, Lightfoot, Pidgeon, Philbrook, Babcock, Price, Eisinger, Rosa and, by invitation, Messrs. Max Tucker and Wager Brown,

The reading of the minutes of the preceding meeting was dispensed with. Mr. R. J. Eisinger was designated secretary pro tem.

A motion was passed appropriating $20 for use of the tennis team on condition that it receive an individual standing in the league, otherwise $10.

The sum of $75 was appropriated for use of the baseball committee conditioned upon raising an additional $150 by subscription.

A letter from N. J. Brumbaugh was received tendering his resignation as vice-president and as member of the Editorial Board of the Journal on account of his health. Upon motion action on the resignation was deferred. The meeting then adjourned.

March 17, 1925.

The Executive Committee met in the Interference Hearing Room at 4:30 on March 17, 1925, upon call of the president. There were present Messrs. Stringham, Philbrook, Eisinger, Rosa, Lightfoot, Whitney.

An appropriation of $160.00 was made for use of the

Social Committee in holding a dance at Meridian Mansions on April 25, 1925, the receipts to be turned into the treasury of the Society.

Mr. Lightfoot reported that the Educational Committee planned to have a series of lectures by Patent Office and other authorities on subjects of interest to the examining corps, beginning April 10, 1925. Mr. Lightfoot also reported that the committee was planning to have the papers which were read before the examining corps. brought up to date.

Mr. Rosa reported that the Membership Committee would start its campaign pay day.

The Committee then adjourned to Monday, March 23. 1925, at 4:30 p. m.

The Patent Office Society sub-committee on lectures, Mr. Sidney F. Smith, Chairman is planning a series of talks on Patent Office practice. Dr. Kinnan delivered the first of this series. A lecture on Trade-Marks will be given by Mr. Fenning on May 8, 1925.

OF GENERAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

Mr. Enos D. Taylor, an associate examiner in Division 13, resigned March 23, 1925. Mr. Taylor was appointed May 8, 1905, from Ohio.

Mrs. Margaret B. Mackey, an assistant patent exam iner in Division 23, resigned April 15, 1925. Mrs. Mackey was appointed from the District of Columbia on April 17, 1918.

Mr. Ernest R. Hentschel, a junior patent examiner in Division 7, resigned March 15th. Mr. Hentschel was ap pointed June 7, 1924 from Mo.

Mr. George M. Nash, a temporary junior patent examiner in Division 51, resigned March 5th. Mr. Nash was appointed from Mass. on Jan. 5, 1925.