almost any other division of the Patent Office the differences set forth in the claims over the prior art would result in the allowance of the application.

The record shows that this application has received two actions by the Office, in the first of which certain references were cited against the claims and in the second of which the Examiner pointed out the pertinency of the same references to the claims as amended at that time. There appears to be no reason for the presentation of a petition of this character, and the filing of such petitions, which are in the nature of complaints, is to be condemned. Proper classification of inventions requires that those of the same character shall be retained in the same division, and it is unreasonable that the Office should be requested to transfer a single application to a division in which other inventions are classified or that the Office should transfer an entire class to a different division merely because a single applicant is dissatisfied with the character of the action which his application receives. If the applicant after traversing the reasons stated by the Examiner is of the opinion that the Examiner's action is erroneous, he has the adequate remedy of appeal.

It may be said in conclusion that complaints by innuendo against Examiners should not be made in papers forming part of the record of an application. For this reason it is ordered that the request filed November 5, together with the Examiner's answer and the brief filed in connection therewith, be removed from the file.

EX PARTE BARTHOLOMEW.

Decided November 25, 1908.

137 O. G., 1940.

REHEARING-SUFFICIENCY OF SHOWING.

A rehearing of a decision upon the patentability of the claims of an invention will not be granted on the bare statement that information which it is sought to present upon rehearing "could not have been obtained at an earlier date" where there was a delay of eleven months after the decision before the petition for rehearing was filed and there is no excuse for this delay nor any showing that if proper diligence had been exercised the information referred to could not have been obtained at an earlier date.

ON PETITION.

PROCESS FOR MAKING VENEER BARRELS.

Messrs. Bates, Fouts & Hull for the applicant.

BILLINGS, Assistant Commissioner:

This is a petition for rehearing in a case where certain claims were held to be unpatentable in my decision rendered December 23, 1907.

Petitioners state that since the rendering of the said decision they have received information which, if permitted to present the same, they believe would result in a change in the decision rendered. They state that this information could not have been obtained by them at an earlier date and that they are prepared to furnish affidavits embodying said information.

In the case of Parker v. Spoon, (73 MS. Dec., 460,) where a petition of similar character was presented, the Commissioner said:

The only reasons given, therefore, for a rehearing in this case are that the petitioner has discovered new facts which have a bearing upon the questions decided therein.

Such a showing is clearly insufficient to warrant a rehearing. Upon a petition for rehearing on the ground of newly-discovered evidence it is essential that such evidence be distinctly stated. It is not sufficient to allege merely that new facts have been discovered. (Allis v. Stowell, 85 Fed. Rep., 481.)

Furthermore, beyond a bare statement that

this information could not have been obtained by them at an earlier datethere is no showing in excuse of the delay of eleven months in bringing this petition, nor is there any showing that if proper diligence had been exercised the information referred to could not have been obtained at an earlier date.

The petition is denied.

EX PARTE CHAFFEE.

Decided November 27, 1908.

137 O. G., 1941.

1. AMENDMENT—Adding DIFFERENT SPECIES.

The statement in the original specification that "I am aware of several modified forms of my invention but deem it unnecessary to illustrate and describe the same in detail" does not warrant the insertion by amendment of descriptions and illustrations of species different from that originally disclosed.

2. DRAWINGS-SHEET CONTAINING ONLY ONE FIGURE.

A sheet of drawings containing only one figure, occupying only a small portion of one side thereof, is objectionable.

ON PETITION.

WINDOW-SASH AND LOCK THEREFOR.

Mr. H. F. Newbury and Messrs. Georgii & Massie for the appli

cant.

BILLINGS, Assistant Commissioner:

This is a petition from the requirement of the Examiner that the additional sheet of drawings filed May 25, 1906, together with the

amendatory matter referring thereto contained in the amendment filed May 25, 1906, be canceled.

The Examiner based his requirement as to Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 on the ground that they involve new matter and as to Fig. 12 on the ground that it was unnecessary and to allow it to remain in the case would leave the sheet of drawings unbalanced.

The record shows that the case as originally filed contained the following statement:

I am aware of several modified forms of my invention but deem it unnecessary to illustrate and describe the same in detail.

The Examiner required that the matter referred to in the abovequoted statement be illustrated or the same be canceled. In response to this requirement applicant filed the sheet of drawings above referred to. An examination of the application shows that the matter illustrating Figs. 13 to 17 was nowhere specifically described in the specification, and the same therefore embodies new matter and should be canceled. It is doubtless true that in a broad sense the invention disclosed in these figures is within the statement of invention in the original application. Such a statement does not, however, give an applicant authority for subsequently inserting in the case descriptions and illustrations of different species of his invention.

As to Fig. 12 the illustration shown therein appears to be entirely unnecessary, and, since it occupies a small portion of one side of the sheet, to allow the same to remain in the case would necessitate a requirement for a new sheet of drawings having only this figure thereon.

The petition is denied.

EX PARTE AULT.

Decided December 2, 1908.

137 O. G., 1941.

EXAMINATION OF APPLICATIONS-EXPLANATION OF REFERENCES-FINAL REJECTION. Where the pertinency of the references had been sufficiently explained and claims were presented without argument, but with a request for further explanation of the references, a final rejection of the claims was proper.

ON PETITION.

WASHBOARD.

Messrs. C. A. Snow & Company for the applicant.

BILLINGS, Assistant Commissioner:

This is a petition that the Examiner be directed to reopen this case for the purpose of applying the references to "each feature of the claims."

The invention upon which application for patent is made is an alleged improvement in washboards. The record shows that the Examiner rejected the claims presented in the original application and specifically applied the references to each of the claims. In view of amendment the Examiner in his next action cited two additional references. Upon subsequent amendments to the case the Examiner relied upon the references of record in the case, each time indicating the manner in which the references were to be combined.

On April 22, 1908, the applicant requested the Examiner to apply the references specifically. In response to this request the Examiner made further explanation of the application of the references to the claims and concluded his letter as follows:

In the opinion of the Examiner the entire application presents nothing that is patentable over the references that have been cited; and as the application has already received nine rejections the claims should be put in condition for final action.

In response to this action the applicant remedied a certain informality in one claim and again requested the Examiner to explain the pertinency of the references.

In reply the Examiner stated:

The claims are rejected on the references and for the reasons previously given for the same. This rejection is made final.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Examiner has refused to apply the references in regard to certain specified features, and it is urged that

an applicant should be entitled to have every feature of his invention treated by the Primary Examiner and when all of the features have been thoroughly exhausted, and the applicant still believes himself to be entitled to a patent, it is then that the case should be carried to the Board of Examiners-in-Chief on appeal. There is one feaure in the present application which has apparently not been given consideration by the Examiner and that is the feature heretofore noted.

The invention for which application for patent is made is an extremely simple one, and in view of the explanations of the Examiner the pertinency of the references should have been sufficiently obvious to one skilled in the art, and especially to attorneys actively prosecuting applications before the Patent Office. The claims in issue were presented a second time without argument, and the request that the pertinency of the references be further explained is believed to have been unnecessary. The Examiner, therefore, adhering to his original opinion and having no new grounds of rejection to offer, very properly decided that the prosecution of the case before him should close.

The Examiner's action finally rejecting the claims was not premature, and the petition is accordingly denied.

BABCOCK V. PICKARD v. ASHTON AND CURTIS.

Decided December 2, 1908.

137 O. G., 1942.

INTERFERENCE-ACCESS TO APPLICATION.

A party to an interference is not entitled to see the parent application of a patent of the opposing party referred to in his preliminary statement when it does not appear that the opposing party is relying on such parent application to establish a date of constructive reduction to practice.

ON PETITION.

OSCILLATION-RECEIVER.

Messrs. Wilkinson, Fisher & Witherspoon for Babcock.

Mr. Philip Farnsworth and Messrs. Meyers, Cushman & Rea for Pickard.

Mr. J. Odell Fowler for Ashton and Curtis.

BILLINGS, Assistant Commissioner:

This is a petition by Ashton and Curtis that they be permitted to inspect and obtain a copy of the application of Pickard, Serial No. 342,465.

The petition is based on the following grounds:

1. That in the preliminary statement filed by Pickard the following statement is made:

That on August 30, 1906, he filed his application for patent, Serial Number 332,697 (which resulted in Patent No. 877,451, January 21, 1908) for the purpose and with the intent, object and result of broadly protecting the subjectmatter of the counts herein, together with various and all other substances and classes of substances which are included within the broad invention of said patent.

2. That the record shows that on August 30, 1906, Pickard filed an application for Patent Serial No. 332,697; that this application was divided, the divisional case being No. 342,465, and that this was again divided, the latter divisional case being numbered 401,856; that the first application matured into Patent No. 836,531 and the last into Patent No. 877,451; that it appears from the record of this latter patent that no references were cited therein, but it was stated that the claims of application Serial No. 342,465 were not patentable over the claims thereof.

It is argued on behalf of Ashton and Curtis that since this latter patent is referred to in Pickard's preliminary statement they are entitled to see the intermediate application, which is the parent application so far as the latter patent is concerned, in order to ascertain what references were cited therein, as no references were cited in the application on which the latter patent was granted.