Commissioner of Patents, discretionary action of not to be controlled by
mandamus. a United States of America, ex rel. Johnson, v. Ewing,
Commissioner of Patents___.
Concealment of invention, where inventor puts aside his invention after
reduction to practice till he discovers the invention put upon the market
by his rival priority should be awarded to the more diligent inventor.
d Dreckschmidt v. Schaefer and Holmes____
Concurrent decisions of the Patent Office and court should not be over-
turned by another court, especially where the members of the court are
not in accord. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting
Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing,
Commissioner of Patents) --
Of three tribunals of the Patent Office not to be disturbed "unless
manifest error has been committed." * Creveling v. Jepson----
Congress, power to legislate arising from authority to regulate foreign
commerce and commerce between the States and with Indian tribes.
** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company--
Construction of-
In view of state of the art of record, too broad. *In re Bech-
Limitation which gives them life not to be ignored for the pur-
pose of covering the disclosure of one of the parties. Gam-
meter v. Lister_-_-
Mechanical skill only shown in view of the state of the art.
re Palmer, Jr______
Prior art shows device unpatentable. * In re Sunderland_
Rejected by reason of the state of the art. * In re McNeal_.
Review of record shows appealed claims, if predicated upon
disclosure, would have a meaning forced upon them robbing
them of their sense. Ex parte Creveling__
To be construed as broadly as the state of the art permits, but
limitations are not to be ignored. Gammeter v. Lister___.
Unpatentable in view of state of the art. *In re Sunderland___
Rule XXI, section 2, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
*In re Hitchcock____
Rule 42. Ex parte Pearson.
Rule 75, Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office.
Ex parte Thomas___.
Rule 130. *Elsom v. Bonner and Golde_
Specifications and patents—
Kuch, No. 1,090,992, "Mercury-vapor lamp," valid, not affected
by award of priority to opponent in interference proceedings
as to certain claims, but not those finally allowed. General
Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co------
Validity and infringement. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v.
Statutes, Section 2, act of May 4, 1906. Ex parte Vacuum Oil Com-
pany.
Section 4904, Revised Statutes. * United States, ex rel. Interna-
tional Money Machine Company, v. Newton__.
Section 4909, Revised Statutes. *In re Carvalho___
Section 4915, Revised Statutes. d Edward E. Gold and Gold Car
Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents,
(substituted for Ewing, Commissioner of Patents).
Subdivision 4, section 4920, Revised Statutes. Lemley v. Dobson-
Evans Co
Trade-Mark acts, 1881 and 1905. ** United Drug Company v. Theo-
dore Rectanus Company__.
Trade-mark statutes. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack__-.
Contract to sell patented article at fixed price void because contrary
to general law. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone
Company and Columbia Graphophone Company_.
Contractor not protected in infringement by act of June 25, 1910.
coni Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. Simon_
Contributory infringement by Government not an illegal interference
with rights of patentee. ** Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of
Correctness of description not material if mark describes like goods of
others. Ex parte Brady____
Costs in equity cases within the discretion of the court. Wagner v.
Meccano Limited
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, appeals from the Commis-
sioner of Patents may be entertained, first, in applications for patents
or reissues twice rejected by Examiner, then by Examiners-in-Chief,
and then the Commissioner, and, second, in interferences where pri-
ority has been awarded. *In re Carvalho_____
Failure by practitioners to observe rules necessary to the orderly
and expeditious despatch of business not to be excused except for
cogent reasons. *In re Hitchcock__-.
No jurisdiction to entertain appeals in interference cases except
from a judgment of priority. *Field et al. v. Colman_
Decision of the Commissioner of Patents relative to delay in prosecution
of application not reviewable by Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia. * In re Carvalho_.
Decisions of the Patent Office tribunals unanimous, nothing tending to
show error, doubts not permissible. In re Kohler___
Delay in payment of patent fees, condition arising from a state of war.
Ex parte Philipp and Schmidt__
Depositions, costs of, allowed by courts, equity rule 58 cited.
Designs, imitation not sufficient, invention must be shown. Ex parte
Patentability determined by difference in configuration from other
designs. Ex parte Kaupmann__
To be viewed as a whole, as the effect is optical. Bayley & Sons,
Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co. et al_-
Determination as to whether suits arising under price-fixing contracts
come under patent law, within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of
appeals. ** Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Com-
pany and Columbia Graphophone Company.
Disclosure of invention must be definite.
Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation____
d H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v.
Must make nature of purported invention clear to persons competent
to understand. * Henggi v. Dallmeyer_
Discretionary action of the Commissioner of Patents not to be controlled
by mandamus. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents___
Double patents, two inventions, a mechanical contrivance and an orna-
mental attachment united therewith, a mechanical patent only obtained,
a design patent may be procured within the two-year period without
violation of rule against double patenting. d Bayley & Sons, Inc., v.
Standart Art Glass Co. et al____.
Equivalents, test, whether a journeyman in the art would turn from
one element to the other readily, sure of the result. H. Ward Leon-
ard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation__--
Exclusive use, security, and protection depend upon the laws of the sev-
eral States. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_
Failure to set up earlier patent in answer, in suit for infringement, not
objection to admission as evidence of state of art and aid in construc-
tion of claims. d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al____
Foreign registrant must have agent in this country on whom process may
be served. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack___.
Former decision, rehearing refused. Edward E. Gold and Gold Car
Heating Company v. Newton, Commissioner of Patents____.
Government contractor not vested with governmental powers by act of
June 25, 1910. ** William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Com-
pany v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company and Curtis
Marine Turbine Company of the United States__
Grant of patent prima facie presumption of patentability. Wonder Mfg.
Improvement, device may infringe generic claim and yet be an improve-
ment thereon without inconsistency. d General Electric Co. v. Cooper
Hewitt Electric Co_____
Infringement admitted, extent of, will not be reviewed by appellate
court on appeal from interlocutory injunction, abuse of discretion by
lower court only, will be ascertained. Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Not avoided by uniting in one part two elements which still reach the
same result in the same way.
Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer
Prior patent admissible as evidence of infringement, even though
only a paper patent, with no showing of use. Wonder Mfg. Co.
v. Block et al.___
Will not be held in combination used by one party differing from that
in original application of other party by the substitution of an
element not an equivalent. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell
Motor Sales Corporation_‒‒‒
Interference, applicant failing to assert rights to claims of patent for
more than a year estopped unless delay shown to have been unavoid-
able. *Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman__
Claim copied within a year of issuance of patent, refused admission,
soon after, but more than a year after issuance of patent, presented
again in a second application, applicant not estopped to make
claim. Barrett v. Hart_____
Claims of reissued patent copied two months after issuance and more
than two years after original within rule of estoppel, basis of claims
being original patent. *Kane v. Podlesak_.
Construction of claims, incorporation of additional figure and sub-
stitute specification. *Ficklen v. Baker..
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.lv/books/content?id=djlEAAAAIAAJ&hl=lv&output=html_text&pg=PR26&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22Whenever+an+application+is+made+for+a+patent+which,+in+the+opinion+of+the+Commissioner,+would+interfere+with+any+pending%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U04BRzb1M5dDOrJrvykMcWjZ7gBqQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=880,307,71,496)
Construction of the issue. *Hendler v. Hansen__
Declaration of cannot be controlled by mandamus.
ex rel. International Money Machine Company, v. Newton___
Disclosure of invention in British provisional specification.
v. Coats and Cameron. Coats and Cameron v. Burt___
Dissolved, ground of failure of earlier application to disclose the in-
vention, question not to be reviewed on ex parte appeal from de-
cision in earlier application. * In re Creveling--
Each element appearing in the counts regarded as material to the
invention covered thereby. *Bijur v. Rushmore_-_
Estoppel, four parties to interference, judgment for fourth party,
afterward patent is issued to third party on different subject-mat-
ter, later first party, copying claims from this patent, cannot be re-
fused these claims on ground of estoppel. *In re Martin_.
Judgment on the record. *Elsom v. Bonner__
One party not disclosing subject-matter of interference in application,
priority of invention properly awarded to his opponent. Gammeter
v. Lister
Patent and application, right to make claims. *Ficklen v. Baker__
* In re Creveling____.
Right to make claims. Creveling v. Jepson---
Rule 130 not considered applicable where junior party of three-party
interference questions right of one of the parties to make claims
but not that of the other party. * Elsom v. Bonner and Golde____
Second interference, same parties, same subject, same testimony,
questions of law and fact res adjudicata, appeal useless.
* Thomp-
son v. Storrie___.
Where applicant is chargeable with laches, interference should be de-
clared only when prima facie case overcoming charge is made out.
Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman_.
Invention, doubts as to, should be resolved in favor of applicant.
* In re Kohler
In mechanical combinations consists in selecting from elements shown
those which constitute an independent entity, serviceable and not
before known. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell Motor Sales
Corporation
Question of inventive advance over disclosure of prior patent in speci-
fication and drawing, claims seeming to show later form, must be
interpreted in light of later device, because of the generic language
of the claims. d General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co-
Where an inventor devises a certain article of ornamental appear-
ance and also a mechanical contrivance united therewith, there are
two inventions. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co.
et al
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, appeal
on patentability. *Elsom v. Bonner and Golde___.
Jurisdiction of the courts, patent not infringed, parties to suit citizens of
same State, Federal courts no jurisdiction over cause of action for un-
fair competition because of sale of infringing article. Detroit Show-
case Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co------
Suits for unfair competition, no diversity of citizenship. Detroit
Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co___‒‒
Jurisdiction of tribunal not to be denied by party who has submitted to
it. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents___
Labels, public insignia not registrable. Ex parte The Biddle Corporation_
Labels and prints, must be descriptive of goods. Ex parte Taylor, Clapp
& Beall____-
Not descriptive merely because color scheme is white. Ex parte
Taylor, Clapp & Beall___
Laches, jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
on appeal, application and patent, delay in copying claims of patent.
*Wintroath v. Chapman and Chapman___
May be explained if not exceeding period covered by statute. Win-
troath v. Chapman and Chapman_
License for the use of patented inventions by the United States not given
by the act of June 25, 1910, provisions of the act being expressly against
such effect. ** William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Com-
pany v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company and Curtis Ma-
rine Turbine Company of the United States.
Limitation of claims, force of in establishing prior invention. Ex parte
Thomas----
|