TRADE-NAME Examiners authorized to permit the use of a trade-name in patent applications if it is distinguished from common nouns, as by capitalization and/or quotation marks. 470 O. G. 717 CONWAY P. CoE, Commissioner. X DIGEST OF DECISIONS (Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia are indicated by the letter ("); of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by a star (*); of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by the letter (*); and of the Supreme Court of the United States by the letter (•)]. ABANDONED EXPERIMENTS. See Interference, 43. ABANDONMENT OF INVENTION. See Interference, 27. 1. UNDER RULE 75 BY ONE OF JOINT APPLICANTS.-The fact that an affidavit 2. NOT ESTABLISHED BY MAKING OF PARTS WITHOUT Assembling Same.— Affidavit under rule 75 to the effect that one of the joint applicants for patent on a design made one part thereof and the other joint applicant made the remainder thereof, Held insufficient to establish reduction to practice of the design, where there is nothing in the affidavit which states or even suggests that they combined their conceptions before the date of filing their application. *Id. AFFIXING MARK TO THE GOODS. See Trade-Marks, 27. AGGREGATION. See Claims, 3. AMENDMENTS. See Final Fees; Interference, 51; Preliminary Statement; ANALOGOUS ARTS. See Patentability, 14. 1. PATENTABILITY SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE.-"The principle is well 2. SAME-SAME.-Where appellee filed an application for a process of producing an irradiated product comprising subjecting yeast to the action of ultra-violet rays and thereafter filed an application as a continuation in part thereof, describing such treatment of fungus materials generally and the latter application was filed more than two years after publications describing such treatment of yeast, Held that claims to the process as applied broadly to the treatment of fungus material were properly rejected since the earlier application had no disclosure sufficient to support these generic claims. *Id. APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS. See Briefs; Interference 1, 2; Suits under Section 4915 Revised Statutes, Trade-Marks, 33, 34. 1. APPEAL-Affidavit as tO SIZE NOT Considered.—Where the proportions and size of an applicant's device and the comparative proportions of the device shown in the patent on which the claims are rejected are not of record in applicant's original specification, an affidavit respecting the relative size of such devices will not be considered on appeal. *In re Mosher, 90. 2. BOARD'S AFFIRMANCE OF EXAMINER ON ONE OF SEVERAL GROUNDS, EFFECT OF.-"The well established rule is that where the Board of Appeals has affirmed a decision of the Examiner, which decision rejected the claims of an applicant on certain grounds and upon certain named references which grounds and references are also cited by the Board in its decision, the affirmance should be held to have the legal effect of a rejection upon all of the grounds and references cited by the Examiner except those expressly reversed by the Board.” *In re Ball, 180. 115363°-37-44 689 APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS-Continued. 3. FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN REASONS OF APPEAL ALL GROUNDS OF EXAM INER'S REJECTION, EFFECT OF.-Where the reasons of appeal do not include all of the grounds of rejection of the involved claims by the Examiner, but only one of them, and the Board did not expressly reverse the decision of the Examiner upon such other grounds of rejection, Held the decision of the Board must be affirmed. *Id. 4. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR-ONLY GENERAL-DISMISSAL.-"It is our view that appellant's reasons of appeal in the instant case are too general in character to be regarded as a compliance with the terms of the statute, and that, therefore, under the circumstances, we may not pass upon the question which appellant seeks to present, and the appeal is dismissed." *In re Ferenci, 373. 5. SAME SAME-INDEFINITE-APPEAL DISMISSED.-Where, in their notice of appeal, appellants merely stated that the Board of Appeals erred, and set forth no specific reasons why the decision of the Board should be modified or reversed we have no authority to revise the decision and the appeal is dismissed. *In re Thomas and Hochwalt, 588. 6. SAME SAME INDEFINITENESS-APPEAL DISMISSED.-Appellant having in his notice of appeal made a mere statement that the Board of Appeals erred in its conclusion both as to law and facts and, having failed to set forth specific reasons why the decision should be either modified or reversed, this court has no authority to revise the decision of the Board of Appeals and the appeal is dismissed. *In re Wheeler, 591. 7. DISMISSAL.-K's. appeal in appeal No. 3,623 and K's. appeal as to counts 1, 2, and 3, in appeal No. 3,624, dismissed on his motion. *Krueger v. Gautier and Nichols. *Krueger v. Chabot, 478. APPEALS. 8. AFFIDAVITS NOT BEFORE PATENT OFFICE NOT CONSIDERED.-An affidavit filed in support of statements in appellant's brief as to alleged advantages of his machine and which was not before tribunals of Patent Office will not be considered by Court. *In re Lawson, 534. See Appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals; Briefs; Construction of Statutes, 2; Disclaimers, 5; Double Patenting, 3; Final Fees; Foreign Patents, 2; Interference, 44; Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals; Petition for Writ of Prohibition; Trade-Marks, 31, 33. APPLICATIONS. See Anticipation; Affidavits, 2; Claims, 2, 7; Construction of Claims, 14, 21, 34; Division of Applications; Final Fees; Interference, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 30, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 55, 56; Patentability, 9; Petition for Writ of Prohibition; Reissues; Rejection of Claims, 2, 3; Suits for Infringement, 1; Trade-Marks, 53. ASSIGNEES. See Interference, 21. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS. See Appeal to the U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 4, 5, 6. IONER AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Interference, 24, 26. BILL IN EQUITY. See Construction of Statutes, 2. BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE. See Appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 2, 3, 5, 6; Decisions of the Board of Appeals 1; Foreign Patents 2. BRIEFS. See Appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 8; Disclaimer, 5; Foreign Patents, 1; Trade-Marks, 2. APPEAL. A brief filed before the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals which contains abusive statements relative to the character of the appellant, which are neither supported by the record nor germane thereto, deserves and receives the disapprobation of the court, and all such statements will be disregarded in consideration of the appeal. *Chrysler Corporation v. Trott, 448. BROAD AND NARROW CLAIMS. See Claims, 6; Interference, 4, 5, 8, 17, 19 22, 23; Patentability, 2, 13; Reissues, 6. BURDEN OF PROOF. See Preliminary statement. CANCELLATION OF CLAIMS. See Final Fees; Reissues, 1, 2, 4. CANCELLATION OF TRADE-MARKS. 9, 10, 21. See Trade-Marks, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, CERTIFICATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. See Supreme Court of the United States. CLAIMS. See Anticipation; Appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 1, 2, 3, 7; Construction of Claims; Construction of Equity Rules; Construction of Specifications and Patents; Designs 1, 3; Disclaimers, 2, 3, 4; Division of Applications; Double Patenting; Foreign Patents, 1; Interference 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59; Patentability, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16; Petition for Writ of Prohibition; Prior Adjudication; Reissues; Rejection of Claims; Suits for Infringement. 1. METHOD AND APPARATUS-FUNCTION OF MACHINE.-"From all the authorities it appears that the rule has become well settled that if the method of a claim can be performed by any other apparatus than that of the applicant, or if it can be performed by hand, it cannot be said that the claim recites the mere function of the apparatus." *In re Parker, 71. 2. NEW MATTER.—A claim of reissue application Held properly rejected as including matter not disclosed in original application on which patent was granted. *In re Crowell, 209. 3. PATENTABILITY AGGREGATION. Certain claims for a gas water heater, reciting a plurality of interchangeable burners of different maximum capacity, Held properly rejected on ground of aggregation. *In re Dougherty, 64. 4. CLAIMS OF A REFERENCE PATENT HELD PART OF THE DISCLOSURE THEREOF.-Claims of a reference patent Held part of the disclosure thereof and to suggest such modification of the structure shown in the drawing thereof that one skilled in the art could, without the exercise of invention, produce the structure claimed by appellant. *In re Mosher, 90. -- 5. METHOD CLAIMS OMITTING DISTINGUISHING LIMITATIONS CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN A PATENT.-Claims for a method of carbonizing material in a rotatable retort by application of heat, reciting the result obtained but omitting limitations disclosed in the application as to the temperatures employed and speed of rotation of the retort, which limitations alone distinguish the method from those of the prior art, Held properly rejected on prior art and Held that decisions of courts upholding validity of claims of similar character are not helpful to applicant as the question in a proceeding to obtain a patent is not the validity or infringement of the patent already granted but whether the claims distinguish from the prior art in a manner which makes proper the grant of a patent. *In re Caunt, 205. 6. PATENTABILITY STARTING MECHANISM FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. Certain claims for automatic starting mechanism for internal combustion engines Held broader than applicant's invention and therefore unpatentable. *In re Ferguson, 493. 7. SAME UNEXPRESSED LIMITATIONS NOT CONSIDERED.-In determining 8. SAME METHOD.-Where method claims comprise steps disclosed in a COLOR. COMBINATION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 1; Division of Applications, 5; Interference, 12; Trade-Marks, 22, 43. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Construction of Statutes, 2; Interference, 24, 25, 26, 52; Petition for Writ of Prohibition Suits under Section 4915 Revised Statutes. COMMON LAW RIGHTS. See Trade-Marks, 3. COMPOSITION OF MATTER. See Anticipation, 1; Construction of Claims, 20. CONCEALMENT OF INVENTION. See Interference, 16. CONCEPTION OF INVENTION. See Affidavits, 2; Interference, 9, 11, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 54, 56. CONFUSION OF THE PUBLIC. See Trade-Marks, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS. See Designs, 1, 3; Double Patenting, 2, 3; Patentability; Rejection of Claims, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 1. METHOD OF GATHERING AND DELIVERING GLASS FROM A POOL.-A claim for a method of gathering glass from a pool and delivering it to a series of moving receivers Held improperly rejected as reciting purely and simply the mechanical movement of the device. *In re Parker, 71. 2. SAME. Claims for a method of marking edible carcasses Held patentably distinct from the claim of appellant's patent for a device used in such marking. *Id. 3. PATENTABILITY-SHOVEL BLADE.-Claims for a shovel blade Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Brandenburg, 82. 4. SAME GAS WATER HEATER.-Claims for a gas water heater Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Dougherty, 64. 5. SAME METHOD OF ROASTING ORES.-Claims for a method of roasting ores Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Carter and Merriam, 87. 6. SAME PROCESS OF TREATING PYRITES.-Claims for process of treating pyrites Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re McCallum and Schraubstadter, 110. 7. SAME DOUGHNUT MACHINE.-Claims for a doughnut machine Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Mosher, 90. 8. SAME STEAM GENERATOR AND METHOD.-A claim for a high pressure steam generator and a method claim based on the operation thereof Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Egloff, 119. 9. SAME JACK.-Claims for a pneumatic jack designed to rock an automobile during greasing thereof, reciting snap acting valve controlling device Held properly rejected where prior patent disclosed similar jack mechanism without such valve controlling means, since substitution of snap acting device anticipated by other references into jack organization of prior patent lacked invention. *In re Nielsen, 133. 10. SAME HOT BAR ROLLING MILL.-Claims for a hot bar rolling mill Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Lindberg, 144. 11. SAME PROCESS OF PRODUCING LIQUID HYDROCARBON DISTILLATES.Claims for a method of producing liquid hydrocarbon distillates Held patentable over the prior art. *In re Greenstreet, 136. 12. SAME METHOD OF BURNING POWDERED FUEL.-Claims for a method of burning powdered fuel Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Garreau, 214. 13. SAME DEVICE FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH WELL CASING.-A claim 14. SAME CARPET SWEEPER.-A claim of application No. 266,268 for 16. SAME HAIR REMOVER AND METHOD.-Claims for a hair remover and claims for method of removing superfluous hair, Held patentable over the prior art. Davies v. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, 17. 17. SAME METHOD OF CONTROLLING MOTOR CAR DRIVING.-Certain claims for a method of assisting in the control of motor car driving, involving detachment of portions of driver's permit or license plate, Held unpatentable as not defining a "mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result", or an "act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780. a Myers v. Coe, Commissioner of Patents, 20. |