Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

mechanic in constructing the invention further than that, in connection with the written specification, they put him in possession of such knowledge of the essential attributes of the invention that through his own skill in the art he can practically create it and employ it.

§ 544. Drawings: Special Rules Governing their Artistic Per

fection.

To render the drawings suitable for the various uses of the Patent Office they are required to attain, in their execution, to a uniform standard of excellence; and for this purpose they must conform to certain rules from time to time prescribed by the department. These rules relate chiefly to the size, materials, arrangement, and lettering of the several views given of the invention, and may be found stated at length in the published regulations of the Office. These rules are rigorously enforced, since unless it conforms to them a drawing is practically worthless; and until complied with by the applicant his case will not receive consideration. The drawing must be signed, like the specification, by the inventor or his attorney in fact, and attested by two witnesses; their full names being given and legibly written.

§ 545. Model not Filed until Ordered by the Patent Office.

A model is not required until an examination of the application in the Patent Office shows it to be necessary to the full disclosure of the essential characteristics of the invention. When thus required, notice to that effect is sent to the applicant and proceedings on his application are suspended until it is furnished. A model filed, when not required, is returned to the inventor. No model of a design is requisite where it can be sufficiently represented by photographs or drawings.

§ 546. Model: its General Requisites.

A model must clearly exhibit every feature of the invention which forms the subject of a Claim, but should not include Splitting & Dressing Mach. Co. v. the act of 1836, could be signed either American Tool & Mach. Co. (1870), by the inventor or his authorized agent, 4 Fisher, 284; Holmes, 503. see Opinion Atty. Gen. (1859), 9 Op. § 544.

That the drawings, under At. Gen. 378.

any other matter than that covered by the actual invention, unless it be necessary to the representation of the invention in a working model. A working model is often desirable in order to enable the examiner to understand the precise operation of the new invention. The model must be neatly and substantially made of durable material, metal being preferred, unless the material is an essential feature of the invention, in which case the model must, of course, conform to this as well as to the other characteristic attributes of the idea of means. The size and finish of the model, with various other minor requisites, must correspond with the regulations from time to time established by the Patent Office, by whose decision the sufficiency of the model is conclusively determined.2

§ 547. Model: its Final Disposition.

When an application is rejected in the Patent Office, and more than two years have elapsed since such rejection, the model will be returned to the applicant upon demand, at his expense, unless it is deemed necessary to preserve it in the Office. When an applicant formally abandons a pending application and files a certificate to that effect, duly signed by him, the model will be restored. Where a patent is granted, the model remains permanently in the Patent Office, and cannot be removed therefrom except in the custody of some sworn employee of the Office, authorized for that purpose by the Commissioner.

§ 548. Model: its Relation to other Parts of the Application. The filing of a model does not constitute the filing of an application, nor is it any evidence that the application is complete. Each portion of the application must be judged by sented is conclusive except on proceedings to set the patent aside, see Hoe v. Cottrell (1880), 17 Blatch. 546; 18 O. G. 59; 1 Fed. Rep. 597; 5 Bann. & A. 256.

§ 546. That the model must correspond with the specification and drawings in all essential particulars, see Ex parte Schoonmaker (1878), 13 O. G. 595.

That the model must clearly show every feature claimed, see Ex parte Crandall (1886), 35 O. G. 625.

? That the decision of the Commissioner that the model was duly pre

§ 548. That the filing of a model is not the filing of an application, see Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co. (1880), 17 O. G. 569; 5 Bann. & A. 108; 2 Fed. Rep. 78; Draper v. Wat

itself so far as regards its correspondence with established rules, although on questions of interpretation the entire application is considered. A sufficient model does not validate an imperfect Description nor an improper Claim, nor supply the place of an accurate drawing. Only when the complete ap

plication is presented to the Patent Office, with every part perfect in itself, has the applicant any standing before the department or any right to have his application duly examined and adjudged.

§ 549. Specimens, instead of Drawings or Model, Required in Applications Covering Compositions of Matter.

A composition of matter not being capable of representation by drawings or model, the law requires the applicant to forward to the Patent Office, on the request of the Commissioner, such specimens of the ingredients and of the composition as will be sufficient for the purpose of experimentally showing the essential features of the invention. In all cases where the article is not perishable, a specimen of the composition claimed, put up in proper form to be preserved by the Office, must be furnished.

SECTION VIII.

OF THE APPLICATION: FILING AND FEES.

§ 550. Filing of Application the Commencement of Proceedings to Obtain a Patent.

The act by which the attention of the Patent Office is directed to the claims of the inventor, and his right to an examination of those claims is secured, is the filing of the application with the Commissioner of Patents. This may be

tles (1878), 16 O. G. 629; 3 Bann. & ingredients shall be filed with an appliA. 618.

That the filing of a model does not show that the application is complete, see Draper v. Wattles (1878), 16 O. G. 629; 3 Bann. & A. 618. § 549. VOL II. - 11

That whether specimens of

cation is for the Patent Office to decide, see Anilin v. Cochrane (1879), 16 Blatch. 155; 4 Bann. & A. 215; Tarr v. Folsom (1874), Holmes, 312; 5 0. G. 92; 1 Bann. & A. 24.

done at any time after the invention is completed, provided no abandonment has taken place; but until it is done the Office can take no notice of the invention further than to allow the inventor access to its library, records, and models, and to supply him with such copies of them as he may desire.

§ 551. Filing of Application: in What it Consists.

An application is filed when the petition, oath, and specification are presented in writing to the Commissioner, accompanied by such drawings as the nature of the case admits, and by such model or specimens as the Commissioner may himself require. Neither the filing of a model, nor the writing of an application, nor the placing of the case in the hands of an attorney with instructions to apply for a patent, constitutes the filing of an application.2 Nor is an application filed until all its parts have been received. It is desirable that these should be presented at the same time, and that all the papers embraced in the application should be attached together. If this is not done, each part must be accompanied by a letter accurately and clearly connecting it with the parts previously forwarded. An application not completed by the presentation of all its parts within two years from the lodgment

§ 550. 1 That the application may be filed at any time after the invention is completed, unless it has been abandoned, see Shaw v. Cooper (1833), 7 Peters, 292; 1 Robb, 643.

See also § 351 and notes, ante.

§ 551. That the application is filed when presented to the Commissioner, see Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co. (1880), 5 Bann. & A. 108; 17 O. G. 569; 2 Fed. Rep. 78; Graham v. McCormick (1880), 5 Bann & A. 244; 10 Bissell, 39; 21 O. G. 1533; 11 Fed. Rep. 859.

2 That filing a model is not filing an application, see Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co. (1880), 5 Bann. & A. 108; 17 O. G. 569; 2 Fed. Rep. 78; Draper v. Wattles (1878), 16 O. G. G. 629; 3 Bann. & A. 618.

That writing an application is not

filing it, see Henry v. Francestown Soapstone Stove Co. (1880), 5 Bann. & A. 108; 17 O. G. 569; 2 Fed. Rep. 78.

That placing the invention in the hands of solicitors to have an application filed is not filing it, see Graham v. McCormick (1880), 10 Bissell, 39; 11 Fed. Rep. 859; 21 O. G. 1533; 5 Bann. & A. 244.

That to sign a blank application and forward it to solicitors to be filled out and filed, and their filing it is not such filing as the law requires, see Ex parte Benton (1882), 23 O. G. 341.

That the decision of the Commissioner that the application is properly filed cannot be collaterally attacked, see Hoe v. Cottrell (1880), 18 O. G. 59; 17 Blatch. 546; 1 Fed. Rep. 597 ; 5 Bann. & A. 256.

See also § 423 and notes, ante.

of the petition in the Patent Office is regarded as abandoned, unless the delay is shown to have been unavoidable.3

§ 552. Application, once Filed, thereafter Known by Date and

Number.

When all the required parts of an application have been thus presented, it is placed on file for examination and a serial number given it, notice of which is sent to the applicant. Thenceforth the application is known both to the Office and to the inventor by its number, as well as by the title of the invention, and in all his correspondence with the Office concerning it, the inventor or his attorney must define the subject-matter of his communication by stating the name of the applicant, the title of the invention, the serial number of the application, and the date when it was filed.

§ 553. Application, once Filed, not Withdrawn: Preserved in Secrecy.

After an application is completed, the specification cannot be withdrawn from the Patent Office for any purpose whatever, though the model or the drawing may be returned to the applicant for such corrections as are deemed necessary. A copy of the specification may, however, be obtained by the inventor or his attorney. From all other persons outside of the department every part of the application is preserved in secrecy, and no information is given concerning it to any one without due authority from the inventor, except in interference cases, or when the application has been rejected or

3 That under the act of 1861 (Sec. 4894, Rev. Stat.), providing that all applications must be completed within two years unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the delay is unavoidable, if the application is delayed longer than two years and is then allowed, the decision of the Commissioner in allowing it is conclusive on the question of the reasonableness of the delay, see McMillin v. Barclay (1872), 5 Fisher, 189; 4 Brews. (Pa.) 275. See also § 578 and notes, post.

That an invention is not abandoned while the application lies unfiled in the hands of the attorney, unless the inventor knows of the neglect, see Birdsall v. McDonald (1874), 1 Bann. & A. 165; 6 O. G. 682.

§ 553. 1 That pending applications must be kept secret, see Ex parte Neale (1879), 15 O. G. 511.

That the rule requiring secrecy is reasonable and should be enforced, see Dec. Sec. Int. (1883), 23 O. G. 629.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »