Gordon. Ex parte, C. D., 1904, 20; 108 O. G., 561_. ** Gordon. Ex parte, 104 U. S., 515____ b d Gould & Eberhardt v. Cincinnati Shaper Co., 194 Fed. Rep., 680_ d 'Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Weintraub, 196 Fed. Rep., 957- Gray Telephone Co. v. Baird Mfg. Co., 174 Fed. Rep., 417_-_. * Great Bear Spring Co. v. Bear Lithia Springs Co., 45 App. D. C., 305_ * Great Bear Spring Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Co., 47 App. D. C., 434 * Greenwood v. Dover, 194 Fed. Rep., 91_-. ** Gregory, Petitioner. In re, 219 U. S., 210--**Grier v. Wilt, 120 U. S., 412. b Grinnell Washing Machine Co. v. Woodrow et al., 209 Fed. Rep., 121. d Grove. In re, 180 Fed. Rep., 62__ H. Page. 56 102 376 237 18, 227 203 205 314 103 279 364 337 368 374, 376, 378 280 340 142 251, 305, 348, 350 204 114 243, 266 43 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 229 118 264 18, 22, 227, 229 121 237 20, 21 156 169 44, 45 199 375 * Henderson v. Gilpin, 39 App. D. C., 428** Henry v. Dick, 224 U. S., 1_. * Herbst. In re, 44 App. D. C., 203– * Hercules Powder Company. In re, 46 App. D. C., 52__. Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. Rep., 579. * Heroult. In re, 29 App. D. C., 42-. * Hillard v. Fisher Co., 159 Fed. Rep., 439. Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. D. C., 68. ** Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. S., 383_ "Horton Co. v. White Lily Co., 213 Fed. Rep., 471. * Howard v. Bowes, 31 App. D. C., 619_ ** Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U. S., 164_ Howes v. McNeal, 4 Fed. Rep., 151. * Huebel v. Bernard, 15 App. D. C., 510_. * Huff v. Gulick, 38 App. D. C., 334. Hulbert. Ex parte, C. D., 1893, 74; 63 O. G., 1687_. *Hunt v. McCaslin, 10 App. D. C., 527– § Hunt . Warnicke's Heirs, 3 Ky., Hardin, 61. I. Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Co., 226 Fed. Rep., 465 "Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Co., 234 Fed. Rep., 653 304, 308 304 "Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v. Public Service Co., 237 Fed. Rep., 400 304 Interboro Brewing Co., 112 MS. Dec., 114_. 73 * International. Curtis Marine Turbine Co. v. Wm. Cramp & Sons Co., 176 Fed. Rep., 925- 337 b International Curtis Marine Turbine Co. et al. v. William Cramp & 338 Page. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co. et al. v. William Cramp & 338 340 d Interurban Ry. & T. Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Com- .278 d Irving-Pitt Co. v. Blackwell, 238 Fed. Rep., 177_. 224 224 "Irving-Pitt Co. v. Twinlock Co., 220 Fed. Rep., 325– d • Irving-Pitt Co. v. Twinlock Co., 225 Fed. Rep., 1022_ 224 224 J. Jackson Spring Co. v. Adler, 243 Fed. Rep., 386_. ** James v. Campbell, 104 U. S., 356-. Jewell Co. Ex parte, C. D., 1904, 150; 110 O. G., 309-. 16, 23, 24, 28, 30, 227 236 52 206 18, 227 Johns-Pratt Co. v. E. H. Freeman Electric Co., 201 Fed. Rep., 356_____ * Johnson v. Brandau, 32 App. D. C., 348_ 60, 180, 181, 182 d Johnson Co., E. E., v. Grinnell Washing Machine Co., 231 Fed. Rep., ** Jones v. Sewall, 3 Cliff. 563-- Jung. Ex parte, C. D., 1916, 86; 233 O. G., 352_ 364 251 9 K. d K-W Ignition Co. v. Temco Co., 243 Fed. Rep., 588- *Kaut-Reith Shoe Co. v. International Shoe Co., 45 App. D. C., 545__ b Kawneer Manufacturing Company v. Detroit Showcase Company, 240 287 158 282 Kearney v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep., 320_. 23, 25, 229 18 Kelley Bros. & Spielman v. Diamond Drill & Machine Co., 123 Fed. d Kellogg Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 235 Fed. Rep., 657_-. 18 287 ** Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U. S., 322_. 246, 248, 249, 250, 251 ** Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 95 U. S., 274__ 280 Kings County Raisin & Fruit Co. v. United States Consolidated S. R. 278 *Kirby v. Clements,, 44 App. D. C., 12_ 39 Kramer. Ex parte, C. D., 1917, 36; 238 O. G., 986_‒‒‒ 56 L. C Lambert Pharmacal Co. v. Bolton Chemical Corporation, 219 Fed. Rep., * Layton Pure Food Co. v. Church & Dwight Co., 182 Fed. Rep., 35__ ** Leeds-Catlin Case, 213 U. S., 301--- 362 184 243 d Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co., 243 Fed. Rep., 391--- 19, 22, 23, 24, 25,28, 29, 30, 237, 267 155 299 250 286 356 * Lotz v. Kenney, 31 App. D. C., 205–. "Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 207 ** Lutcher & Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight, 217 U. S., 257. ** Lyman Ventilating Co. v. Lalor, 15 Fed. Cas., 1163_ M. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. Schnelbach, 239 Pa., 76_. 19 241 b Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co., 231 Fed. Rep., 183--- 240, 241 ** Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S., 354__ 11, 15, 42, 44, 251 199 52 * Malcolm v. Richards, 47 App. D. C., 582– * Manly v. Williams, 37 App. D. C., 194_. 194 ** Manufacturing Company v. Trainer, 101 U. S., 51-- d b Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. Simon, 227 Fed. Rep., 906 370, 376 338, 355 Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. Simon, 231 Fed. Rep., 1021 338, 355 ** Market Street Railway Co. v. Rowley, 155 U. S., 621 ** McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S., 419. ** McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S., 245– "Meccano, Limited, v. Wagner et al., 234 Fed. Rep., 912____ 232, 233, 235, 239 ** Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S., 514** Miles, Dr., Medical Company v. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S., 373_ 348, 349, 350 ** Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Company, 104 U. S., 350. ** Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S., 186- 11, 15, 251 17, 280 d Miller Rubber Co. v. Behrend, 242 Fed. Rep., 515_. 50 15, 19. 23, 24, 25 Milloy Electric Co. v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co., 148 Fed. Rep., 843- 43 * Milton v. Kingsley, 7 App. D. C., 531-. 156 ** Minerals Separation Co. v. Hyde, 242 U. S., 261. Mitchell. Ex parte, C. D., 1913, 233; 196 O. G., 595. Moehn. Ex parte, C. D., 1903, 322; 106 O. G., 995_. 253 37 2 Montgomery v. Thompson, 1891, App. Cas. L. Rep., 217. 184 * Moore, Commissioner of Patents, v. Heany, 34 App. D. C., 31. 147, 166 ** Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S., 120__ 310, 315 * Morgan v. Seaward, 1 Web. Pat. Cas., 187_ 250 ** Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company, 152 U. S., 425_ Page. § Murphey v. Virgin, 47 Nebr., 692__. ** Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing * Motz Tire & Rubber Co. In re, 40 App. D. C., 487. * Murphy v. Meissner, 24 App. D. C., 260. -- 251, 350 173, 209, 211 N. * Nairn Linoleum Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works, 46 App. D. C., 64---- 61, 62 ** Nalle v. Oyster, 230 U. S., 165_ National Biscuit Company v. Baker, 95 Fed. Rep., 135. d National Syrup Co. v. Cocoa Cola Co., 215 Fed. Rep., 527. d Neill v. Kinney, 239 Fed. Rep., 309- 159 159 48, 278 84 181 257 * Newcomb Motor Company v. Moore, 30 App. D. C., 464__ 147 d Newton Washing Mach. Co. v. Grinnell Washing Mach. Co., 222 Fed. 364 § Nider v. Commonwealth, 140 Ky., 684_. 375 c Northwestern Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Philadelphia Co., 1 Ban & Ard., 19, 23 0. Obannon Corporation, 121 MS. Dec., 82. b 'O'Donnell, Daniel, v. Riscal Mfg. Co., 228 Fed. Rep., 127-- d Otis Co. v. Interborough Co., 222 Fed. Rep., 501_- Outcault v. The New York Herald, C. D., 1908, 204; 136 O. G., 437_ d Park & Son Co., John D., v. Hartman, 153 Fed. Rep., 24_ 243 ** Park & Tilford, Petitioner, 145 U. S., 83- 104 Park & Tilford. Ex parte, 114 MS. Dec., 310_. 73 ** Park Square Automobile Station, Petitioner. Ex parte, 244 U. S., 412_ * Phoenix Paint and Varnish Co. v. John T. Lewis & Bros. Co., 32 App. 158 Pioneer Co. v. Oppenheimer's Sons, C. D., 1907, 144; 128 O. G., 1293‒‒‒‒ 54 246, 250 * Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C., 399– 156, 173, 209, 211 ** Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co., 144 U. S., 238—— 23, 29, 30, 228 b President Suspender Co. v. Macwilliam, 233 Fed. Rep., 439- 310, 314 260 * Prindle v. Brown, 24 App. D. C., 114_. Proudfit v. Kalamazoo Co., 230 Fed. Rep., 120. Pym v. Hadaway, C. D., 1907, 209; 129 O. G., 2073__ Q. * Quaker City Flour Mills Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 43 App. D. C., 260** Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U. S., 420___ R. Page. 156 264, 285 119 218 178 Raggett v. Findlater, 1873, 17 Eq. Cas., 29 Railroad v. Consolidated Co., 67 Fed. Rep., 121_ ** Railroad v. Sayles, 97 U. S., 554‒‒‒‒‒ ** Railroad Supply Co. v. Elyria Iron Co., 244 U. S., 285_ Rathbone, Sard & Co. v. Champion Steel Range Co., 189 Fed. Rep., 26__ 184 264 195, 264 237 303 c Rawson et al v. C. W. Hunt Co., 140 Fed. Rep., 716- Ray v. Sweeney, 77 Ky., 14 Bush, 1. 43 375 ** Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S., 347. d Rectanus Co., Theodore, v. United Drug Co., 226 Fed. Rep., 545_ Redway v. Banham, 1896 App. Cases, 199_. § Regis v. Jaynes, 185 Mass., 458. ** Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, Pet., 657 ** Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U. S., 299 Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co., 52 Fed. Rep., 455. ** Rifle & Cartridge Co. v. Whitney Arms Co., 118 U. S., 22. ** Root v. Third Avenue Railroad, 146 U. S., 210_ ** Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall., 800_ 8 Russia Cement Co. v. Lepage, 147 Mass., 206_ ** Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S., 525_. S. Samson Works v. Puritan Mills, 211 Fed. Rep., 603_ d Sanitas Case, 139 Fed. Rep., 551_. 368 371 184 371 102 368 376 376 246, 250 65, 66 10, 11, 154, 155, 207, 208, 209 338 66 340 184 375 288 243 * Sarrazin v. Irby Cigar etc. Co., 93 Fed. Rep., 624_ 79, 206 ** Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U. S., 19. 373, 377 ** Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U. S., 42– 373, 377 * Schartow v. Schleicher, 35 App. D. C., 347_. 171 d Schiebel Toy Novelty Co. v. Clark, 217 Fed. Rep., 760_ 236, 288 ** Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S., 163_ 340 * Schweinfurter. In re, 38 App. D. C., 279_. * Schraubstadter. Ex parte, 26 App. D. C., 331_ Seacoast Canning Co. Ex parte, C. D., 1914, 24; 199 O. G., 617 * Seeberger v. Dodge, 24 App. D. C., 476-- 50 180 52 160 |