or if he is a patentee the date and number of his patent and the date of his application therefor, the ordinals of conflicting Claims, and the invention claimed, clearly and concisely defining them in as many counts as are necessary to exhibit all interfering Claims included in the issue. These notices are transmitted with the files to the examiner of interferences, whose duty it is to ascertain whether the issues are clearly stated and the notices sufficient, and if he finds them defective in any material point to return them with his objections to the examiner for amendment. Upon the refusal of the latter to amend them the matter is referred to the Commissioner. These notices being perfected, the interference is formally declared, and the notices are sent to the parties in interest, accompanied by an order to each to file a preliminary statement of the facts, on which his claim to priority is based, within a time mentioned in the notice. The interference then becomes a contested case, and passes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the examiner of interferences, unless some questions other than those relating to priority arise, and thus compel its temporary return to the consideration of the primary examiner.8

§ 595. Interference Proceedings: Preliminary Statements.

The preliminary statement ordered in the notices of interference is a concise written recital, under oath, of the date of the contestant's original conception of the invention, of his construction of a drawing or model, of the disclosure of his invention to others, of its reduction to practice, and of the extent of its use. If the invention was made abroad, the statement must declare when and where, if ever, it was patented or described in a printed publication, and when it, or the knowledge of it, was introduced into this country.2

8 That the examiner of interferences has exclusive jurisdiction of the issues when declared, see Faure v. Bradley (1888), 44 O. G. 945.

1

§ 595. That the preliminary statement must declare the character and extent of the use of the invention from the time of its perfection until the ap

plication was filed, see Dermody v. Pennock (1878), 14 O. G. 202.

That the extent of the use of the invention need not be given if it is evident that it was completed within two years before the application, see Ex parte Wheat (1878), 14 O. G. 787.

2 That an applicant for an invention

As the principal object of these statements is to fix the relative times of the inventive acts of the several contestants, the dates given therein are considered as conclusive, and the evidence afterwards offered must confirm, not contradict, them.3 This statement must also embrace, in general, all the facts which the applicant intends to rely on to support his claim, whether they are to be proved by the records of the Patent Office or by extrinsic testimony. It must be sealed up before filing, and cannot be opened for examination by the opposing parties until all are filed or the time for filing has expired, and until the examiner of interferences has inspected it and found it satisfactory. Either of the contestants may be required by the examiner to correct defects. in his statement within a specified period, but neither the original nor the amended statement can be returned to him after it has once been filed. The time for filing or amending the statements may be extended upon motion made before the expiration of the interval first limited for that purpose, and after proper notice to the adverse parties. Claimants refusconceived abroad may claim the date of the arrival of the inventor or his agent in the United States as that of his discovery, see Thomas v. Reese (1880), 17 O. G. 195.

That the preliminary statement need not fix the exact date of the invention, nor must the proof necessarily correspond with the exact date fixed, see Connor v. Williams (1878), 15 O. G. 387. That " on or about" such a date means that exact date, not an earlier one, see Bering v. Haworth (1878), 14 O. G. 117.

That the earliest dates given to the inventive act in the preliminary statement are conclusive on the claimant, as against his future claim for an earlier date, see Connor v. Williams (1878), 15 O. G. 386; Walpuski v. Jacobsen (1876), 9 O. G. 964.

That a statement fixing dates by belief only may be corrected by evidence, see White v. Farmer (1874), 5 O. G. 338.

That a claimant fraudulently misled is not bound by his statement, see Allen v. Gilman (1872), 2 O. G. 293.

That if the claimant were insane when he made his statement he may amend or disavow it, see Ex parte Brooks (1874), 6 O. G. 296.

That a preliminary statement works no estoppel in the courts, see Union Paper Bag Mach. Co. v. Crane (1874), 6 O. G. 801; Holmes, 429; 1 Bann. & A. 494.

4 That where the later applicant had filed an application before the earliest of the contesting applicants, his later application must so refer to it as to connect the two, or it will not be noticed, see Huntley v. Smith (1880), 18 O. G. 795.

That a disclaimer of the invention in conflict is not a preliminary statement, see Laverty v. Flagg (1879), 16 O. G. 1141.

ing to amend their statements when required to do so, will be restricted to their record dates during the further proceedings in the case.

§ 596. Interference Proceedings: Effect of Failure to File Preliminary Statement.

The failure of any party to file his preliminary statement within the time prescribed forfeits his right to be further heard, by evidence or argument, in favor of an earlier date for his inventive act than that prima facie date fixed by the filing of his application. Hence, if he is the later of two conflicting applicants, judgment goes against him at once upon the record. If he is the later of three or more conflicting applicants, he is no longer recognized as a party to the interference, which proceeds in its regular course as to the others. If his antagonist is a patentee whose patent was granted on an application prior to his own, judgment is rendered forthwith for the patentee. In applications for re-issue, as well as in patents put in interference, the date of the original application on which the first patent issued is the prima facie date of the inventive act of the patentee or re-issue applicant; and in the absence of his preliminary statement this date is taken as the true date of his conception of the idea of the invention, and his claim to priority is determined by its relation to the dates fixed by the adverse parties in their applications or by their preliminary statements and the proof that may be afterward adduced in their support. Thus if an applicant, by his preliminary statement, fixes the date of his inventive act at a time previous to the filing of the original application for a conflicting patent, and the patentee

1

§ 596. That failure to file a preliminary statement leaves the party to the date of his application, see Booth v. Lyman (1880), 17 O. G. 393.

That the rule requiring a preliminary statement and prescribing its form and contents, is reasonable and must be obeyed, see Smith v. Cowles (1885), 30 O. G. 343.

2 That if the later of three or more

conflicting applicants fails to file his statement he is no longer a party to the interference, see Ex parte Evans (1873), 3 O. G. 180.

8 That a prior patentee in interference is entitled to a judgment unless the contesting applicant files his statement and offers evidence, see Loring v. Hall (1879), 15 O. G. 471.

presents no preliminary statement, the applicant is entitled to a decision in his favor upon showing that he made the invention before the date on which such original application was filed. Or if an applicant for the re-issue of a later patent, based upon a later original application, by his preliminary statement carries the date of his invention beyond the date of the original application for the prior patent, and the prior patentee fails to file his statement as required, the former will be found to be the prior inventor if his inventive act is proved to have preceded the filing of the application for the earlier patent. Where no preliminary statement is filed by any of the parties, priority is awarded to the senior applicant.1

§ 597. Interference Proceedings: Amendment of Preliminary

Statement.

The allegations of a preliminary statement are presumed to be correct, and are conclusive upon the party filing it, unless he has been fraudulently misled.1 Evidence offered to support them must conform to these allegations in all material points or it will be disregarded.2 Corrections in the preliminary statement, especially in regard to dates, thus become of vital importance, and if as first filed it contains substantial errors arising from inadvertence or mistake, amendments may be made on motion showing to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that they are essential to the ends of justice.3

4 That the senior applicant will receive the patent in the absence of any preliminary statement from either party, even though the junior applicant's oath discloses that he received a British patent before the senior application was filed, see Sellon v. Hochhausen (1885), 33 0. G. 995.

That where no statement is filed, the junior applicant cannot have a patent even though the senior applicant for the present disclaims the invention, if his application covers it, see Sellon v. Hochhausen (1885), 33 O. G. 995.

597. That a preliminary statement procured by fraud is not binding,

see Allen v. Gilman (1872), 2 O. G. 293.

That insanity of the maker avoids a preliminary statement, see Ex parte Brooks (1874), 6 O. G. 296.

2 That the claimant cannot introduce evidence contradicting his statement, see Connor v. Williams (1878), 15 O. G. 387.

8 That a preliminary statement may be amended by permission of the Commissioner in proper cases, see Clemson v. Fowler (1886), 37 O. G. 671; Moore v. Brown (1882), 22 O. G. 1882.

That an error in a preliminary statement in reference to a date may be

Clerical errors may be corrected at any time, but a motion to amend in material particulars must be made, if possible, before the taking of any testimony and as soon as practicable after the discovery of the error. Upon this motion all parties are entitled to be heard, and reasonable notice of its pendency must be served upon them. No amendment can