Mandamus, Commissioner of Patents not to be compelled to reopen inter-
ference by. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents__
Discretionary action of the Commissioner of Patents not controllable
thereby. * Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents_
Does not lie where no legal injury is shown. a United States of
America, ex rel. Johnson, v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents_----
May not control declaration of interference, nor will question of
res adjudicata be reviewed on. * United States, ex rel. Inter-
national Money Machine Company, v. Newton__-
Not to be issued to an administrative officer except for refusal to
perform ministerial duties. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents--
Meaning of claims clear, consideration of prior art not necessary.
* Creveling v. Jepson----
Modification of Commissioner's decision without rehearing, if right, not
reversible error. * Creveling v. Jepson_.
Monopoly, right to preserve as trade-secret for profit and right to protect
under patent laws inconsistent. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General
Rights cannot be extended by contract to impose restraint upon
future sales. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone
Company and Columbia Graphophone Company.
Name of applicant, as signed an accepted name though also an abbre-
viation, no affidavit as to full first name should be required. Ex
parte Bowen
New use of old devices, concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tri-
bunals and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Ed-
ward E. Gold and Gold Car Heating & Lighting Company v. Newton,
Commissioner of Patents, (substituted for Ewing, Commissioner of
Patents).
Oaths, no power vested in diplomatic or consular officers in charge of
interests of United States to administer in enemy alien countries.
'Opinion of Solicitor of Department of Interior_-_-
Officers and enlisted men, under section 113, Penal Code, enlisted men
may practice before Patent Office, but commissioned officers doing so
may not receive compensation for services. Opinion Solicitor Depart-
ment Interior___
Official act within constitutional jurisdiction, court has no power to undo
by writ of mandamus. Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents.
Opposition to registration properly sustained where the user of the mark
might profit by the reputation of another. *The Thomas Manufactur-
ing Company v. The Aeolian Company__
Particular patents, Adler and Sullivan, No. 991,187, "Spring cushions for
seats and backs of automobiles," valid and not infringed. Jackson
Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler_.
Particular Patents-Continued.
Baldwin, Reissue No. 13,542, (original No. 821,580,) "Acetylene-gas-
generating lamp," valid. ** Abercrombie & Fitch Company and
Justrite Manufacturing Company v. Baldwin and John Simmons
Company
Claim 4 construed, validity sustained, original invention not
broadened. ** Abercrombie & Fitch Company and Justrite Manu-
facturing Company v. Baldwin and John Simmons Company.
Bayley, Design No. 49,593, "Electric-lighting fixture," void for lack of
invention. Bayley & Sons, Inc., v. Standart Art Glass Co. et al.
Block, No. 1,061,353, "Arch-support," not infringed.
Co. v. Block et al-----.
Same, No. 1,127,349, “Support for arch of foot," anticipated. “Won-
der Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Claim limited by its language and not infringed. Wonder Mfg.
Co. v. Block et al..
Brooke, No. 723,983, "Apparatus for cutting and distributing molten
materials," construed, valid, and infringed. d Schram Glass Mfg.
Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co____
Burchenal, No. 1,135,351, "Hydrogenation of oil," claims 1 and 2
unpatentable and not infringed. Procter & Gamble Company v.
Berlin Mills Company--
Hornby, No. 1,079,245, perforated plate.
Limited----
Kuch, No. 1,090,992, “Mercury-vapor lamp," patentable improvement
and infringed. General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric
Co-
Co. et al v. Public Service Cup Co‒‒‒‒‒
Same, No. 1,081,508, certain claims valid and infringed, claim 16
valid, but not infringed. Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al v.
Public Service Cup Co..
Macbeth, Reissue No. 13,766, (original No. 1,097,600,) process for
making glass. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co__
Phillips, No. 950,402, gearing device, void, being merely an aggrega-
tion of old elements. ** Grinnell Washing Machine Company v.
E. E. Johnson Company---
Plym, No. 852,450, store-front construction, valid and infringed.
troit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co---
Same, No. 860,150, construction of glass plates, not infringed.
troit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer Mfg. Co...
Ruud, No. 853,738, shows invention and has not been anticipated.
d Ruud Mfg. Co. v. Long-Landreth-Schneider Co. et al--.
Schade, No. 819,461, "Loose-leaf binder,” void for lack of invention.
Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co-----.
Spengler, No. 1,074,907, valid and not anticipated by the earlier Clay
patents. United States Metal Cap & Seal Co. v. American Key-
less Kap Corporation et al----
Stenz, No. 1,047,849, limited and as limited not infringed. Simplex
Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al-----
Patents reward of a tested contribution to the art, not of a pregnant sur-
mise or a promising hypothesis. H. Ward Leonard, Inc., v. Maxwell
Motor Sales Corporation---
For improvement, invention considered with reference to prior
patents as to advance, claims immaterial except to clear obscurity.
d General Electric Co. v. Cooper Hewitt Electric Co---‒‒‒
Granted on an invention in controversy after the filing of an appli-
cation for the same invention, but on an earlier application, may
establish bar of prior invention. Ex parte Thomas--
Granting of presumes patentable invention. d Corona Chemical Co. v.
Latimer Chemical Co‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
Valid and infringed, unfair competition may be included in account-
ing for damages and profits. Detroit Showcase Co. v. Kawneer
Mfg. Co‒‒‒
Patent law must consider means as well as product," means" suggesting
meritorious human effort, reward of which is the object of the law.
d Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co., et al__
Policy of to secure to the public benefit of inventions after expiration of
fixed term. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
Patent Office tribunals, concurrent decisions upheld unless there is mani-
fest error. *Rees v. White_____
Concurrent judgment not overturned except for manifest error.
re Kohler
Reversal of uniform decisions obtained only upon a very clear case
of error. * Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant,
deceased, v. Johnson___.
Patentability, design must possess different configuration from other de-
signs. Ex parte Kaupmann___.
Successful imitation of product not necessarily patentable novelty.
d Simplex Lithograph Co. v. Renfrew Mfg. Co. et al-----
Patented article, contract fixing price void, cannot be enforced by suit
for infringement. **Boston Store of Chicago v. American Grapho-
phone and Columbia Graphophone Company__
Patentee not first in field, scope of invention limited by language of claim.
d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al.
Popular recognition and demand for article by those who use it matters
to be considered in favor of invention. Globe Knitting Works v.
Segal et al._____
Practice in the Patent Office, as stated in former decisions, defined. Ex
parte Holst and Leers_
Preamble to claims, qualifying clause not to be ignored because it does
not describe an element, but should be read on all following elements.
d Schram Glass Mfg. Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co‒‒‒‒
Preliminary statement, question of amendment as to whether device con-
sidered first as model was, in fact, reduction to practice to be postponed
to final hearing. Aberle v. Borchert v. Schmidt v. Gaisman____
Priority of invention, properly awarded.
* Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, deceased, v.
Johnson____
Where one inventor did nothing with an invention until others en-
tered the field, priority was properly awarded to the more diligent
parties. * Dreckschmidt v. Shaefer and Holmes__.
Publication by inventor of device on which he seeks patent more than two
years prior to application precludes patent. Wagner v. Meccano
Limited__
Question whether construction embodies issue, not raised before Patent
Office, not before the court. *Luckett v. Straub_--
Redeclaration of interference not to be compelled by mandamus
*Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents___
Reduction to practice, test should show that device will give desired
result. * Jobski and Griswold, special administrators of Bryant, de-
ceased, v. Johnson
Reissue, application delayed for long period, excuse for such delay must
be out of the ordinary. Ex parte Schneider__.
Intervening rights presumed where application is delayed for a long
period. Ex parte Schneider__
With broader claims properly refused where there was a delay in
making application of more than two years. Ex parte Schneider__
Renewal of application, date of filing relates back to date of filing of
original application. *Murphy v. Thompson_-_
Res adjudicata, question of not reviewed on mandamus.
ex rel. International Money Machine Company, v. Newton__
Right to make claims. Gammeter v. Lister_.
Estopped by delay, former decision cited. *Kane v. Podlesak___
Rightful issue of patent, question not to be raised on appeal. * Lauten-
schlager v. Glass__.
Sale of patented article at fixed price under contract not within monopoly
of patent law and cannot be enforced as infringement.
Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Company and Columbia
Graphophone Company---
Scope of patent, where application for patent was filed prior to that for
patent in suit it is prima facie part of prior art and its limitations of
scope of patent in suit may be considered. d Jackson Cushion Spring
Co. v. Adler_.
Second application, filed after expiration of time for second renewal of
first application, cannot be considered a continuation of the first appli-
cation. Barrett v. Hart_____
Specific claims, to be interpreted in the light of the general disclosure.
* Burt v. Coats and Cameron. Coats & Cameron v. Burt____
Specifications, addressed to those skilled in the art. * Burt v. Coats and
Cameron. Coats and Cameron v. Burt___
Suits for infringement. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. v. Adler___.
Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co-----
Costs in each case disposed of on its own merits, in the discretion
of the court. 'Individual Drinking Cup Co. et al. v. Public Serv-
ice Cup Co‒‒‒‒‒
Date of filing application shown by officially printed copy accepted
as correct in absence of objection. Lemley v. Dobson-Evans Co--
On appeal from an interlocutory injunction appellate court will go no
further than to ascertain if court below abused its discretion in
granting. d Wonder Mfg. Co. v. Block et al__
Terminology. Anticipation and prior invention distinguished. Rule 75
construed and applied. Ex parte Thomas___
Trade-marks, act of February 20, 1905, applies to all registrations, in-
cluding those under the law of 1881. Hudnut v. Phillips v Mack_---
Act provides for registration of actual not fictitious marks.
![[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]](https://books.google.lv/books/content?id=djlEAAAAIAAJ&hl=lv&output=html_text&pg=PR32&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=ACfU3U178-8P2FUYJ-2o4SO1QqVRRFrsmw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=911,110,52,782)
Adoption and use of mark does not project rights of protection in
advance of extension of trade, neither will it give territorial rights
in localities where thereafter it may seem desirable to extend the
trade. ** United Drug Company v. Theodore Rectanus Company_
Adverse decision in interference, cancelation proper. * Great Bear
Spring Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company--
Appealing under provisions of trade-mark statutes is, in effect, assert-
ing their validity. *Fulton Water Works Company v. Bear Lithia
Springs Company-
Applying to goods of different class of merchandise. * Chas. A.
Schieren Company v. Whittemore Bros. Corporation and Sullivan_
Cancelation may follow as an incident to interference decision in a
registration under the law of 1881. Hudnut v. Phillips v. Mack__
Certain features, though disclaimed, should not be removed from the
drawings. Ex parte L. C. Chase & Company-
Class of merchandise, ice-cream cones and dairy products not the
same class of goods. * Borden's Condensed Milk Company v. Eagle
Manufacturing Company---
Commissioner of Patents may refuse to grant monopoly in mark both
descriptive and containing the common trade-name of similar arti-
cles in a class of merchandise, confusion of the public being likely
to result. * In re Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc_---
Construction of section 13, act 1895, trade-mark statutes. * Fulton
Water Works Company v. Bear Lithia Springs Company----
|