APPLICATIONS-Continued. faith for the purpose of obtaining a patent on the invention set forth in 5. SAME-AFTER RECEIVING OFFICE STAMP-It is a matter of grave doubt whether any paper or drawing relating to an application for patent, whether such application be complete or not, which has been filed in the Patent Office and has been stamped or otherwise marked by the Office with the date of its receipt should be returned. Certainly a paper or drawing so marked should not be returned except on satisfactory showing therefor being made, and in no case should it be returned without erasure or cancellation of the marking put upon it by the Office. Id. 6. SAME-OPPORTUNITY For Changes in DRAWING and SpecificaTION-CONTROVERSY AS TO DATE OF INVENTION AS SHOWN BY RECORDS OF THE PATENT OFFICE-The receipt of the papers and drawing is acknowledged by the Office. To permit the papers so dated to pass out of the custody of the Office would offer opportunity for material changes in the drawing and specification and would give rise to endless controversy as to the date at which the invention set forth was actually shown by the records of the Patent Office. Id. APPLICATIONS BY EMPLOYEES OF THE PATENT OFFICE. 1. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 480, REVISED STATUTES-The obvious purpose and intent of Congress, as expressed by section 480, Revised Statutes, was and is to prevent persons employed in the Patent Office from improperly utilizing their knowledge of the inventions of others, acquired as a result of their official connection with the Patent Office, and from utilizing the opportunities they have, as a result of their employment, to become rivals or competitors of inventors whose applications they have before them for examination, or in any wise to take undue advantage of the knowledge they have acquired of pending applications in their capacity of Examiners or officials. Ex parte McElroy, 40. 2. SAME-The reason of the statute which prohibits an officer or an employee of the Patent Office from acquiring either directly or indirectly any interest in a patent issued would seem by fair intendment to prohibit him from filing an application for the interest he is not permitted to acquire. The application is the evidence of an inchoate right to a patent, and the ownership becomes complete when the patent is issued. Id. 3. SAME-To construe the statute to allow an employee of the Patent Office to file an application would obviously permit, if in fact it did not encourage, the very mischief the statute was clearly intended to prevent, as Examiners might make some slight improvement or modification in inventions covered by applications pending before them for examination and file an application, change or modify it from time to time, negotiate the sale of the whole or a part interest in the invention or application or the patent to be predicated thereon, and resign and prosecute the case and take a patent whenever such course seemed to offer greater pecuniary advantages than to remain in the Office, and thus the Office might become freighted with applications filed by Examiners or other employees in contravention of the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the statute, and thus become a prolific source of scandal. Id. 4. SAME-STRIKING APPLICATION FROM THE FILES-RETURNING FEE-An application filed by an employee of the Patent Office ordered to be stricken from the files and the fee returned, as under section 480, Revised Statutes, it is not competent for an inventor to file an application for a patent while he is such an employee. He may file his application, however, after he has severed his connection with the Office. Id. L APPLICATIONS FOR INVENTIONS KNOWN TO BE UNPATENTABLE. See Attorneys, 29, 30, 42, 43. APPLICATIONS STRICKEN FROM THE FILES OF THE PATENT OFFICE. See Applications, 2; Applications by Employees of the Patent Office, 4. ARGUMENT. See Attorneys, 38. ASSIGNEES. See Abandonment, 2; Contracts, 5; Interference, 52; Oath. ASSIGNMENT BY ATTORNEY. See Assignments, 4. ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE INVENTIONS. TITLE-RIGHT TO IMPROVEMENTS UNDER ASSIGNMENT-An assignment of part of right, title, and interest in a patented invention and in and to any further improvements that the inventor might make or acquire does not give assignees title to an invention which is radically different in several respects, though belonging to the same art. To do so would be in effect to hold that the assignment in question constitutes a mortgage on the inventor's brain. Only improvements on the particular machine patented would pass by the assignment referred to. Independent Electric Company v. Jeffrey Manufac turing Company et al., 287. * ASSIGNMENTS. See Defense, 4; Grant of Patent; Receiver. 1. CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES-QUESTION OF INVENTION-A contract between the parties whereby they agreed to transfer all inventions made by them to a certain company can have no bearing on the question as to which of these parties is the inventor of a certain machine, but bears only on the question of ownership of the invention. *Hunt et al. v. McCaslin, 401. 2. OMISSION OF PATENT-TITLE-When in a written instrument intended to effect the transfer of patents one such patent is inadvertently, as shown by competent evidence, omitted, the assignee has equitable title. *Newton v. Buck, 519. 3. REGULAR ON ITS FACE-ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT-This Office has no means to determine whether agreements in regard to an assignment have been fulfilled, and therefore an assignment regular on its face and regularly recorded in the Office must be considered an absolute assignment until canceled by the written consent of both parties or by the decree of a competent court. The Office must follow the record, since it has no means to determine disputed questions of title. Ex parte Nichols, 70. 4. APPLICATION NOT IDENTIFIED-POWER OF ATTORNEY-REQUEST TO ISSUE PATENT-A request that a power of attorney given by an alleged assignee be approved and that a patent issue to said assignee denied, as the assignment fails to fully identify the application and to specifically request the issue of the patent to the assignee. Ex parte Chillingsworth, 72. ATTORNEYS. See Assignments, 4; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 9, 13; Power of Attorney. 1. MISTAKE OF-Delay-DILIGENCE-Mistaken advice on the part of a solicitor, from which followed long delay in putting an invention into practice, will not be allowed to militate against the just claims of others who have been diligent in the realization of their conceptions. *Arnold v. Tyler, 349. 2. JOHN WEdderburn and John WedDERBURN & Co. HELD GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT, AND ALSO HELD THAT HE AND THEY SHOULD BE DISBARRED-The report of the Assistant Commissioner in reference to the order upon John Wedderburn and John Wedderburn & Co. to show cause why he or they should not be refused recognition as patent agent or patent agents, and the facts, evidence, and arguments in the case examined, and Held that the said Wedderburn and Wedderburn & Co. have been guilty of gross misconduct as agents or solicitors before the Patent Office, and that he and they should be disbarred. In re John Wedderburn and John Wedderburn § Co., 77. ATTORNEYS-Continued. 3. DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER-RELATION OF SOLICITORS TO THE COMMISSIONER DISTINCT FROM THAT OF A LAWYER TO A JUDGE-The relation which a patent solicitor sustains to the Commissioner of Patents is not the same as that which a member of a bar sustains to a court. The Commissioner is not a member of the judiciary, practitioners are not members of a court of which the Commissioner is judge, nor does the Commissioner have the authority or jurisdiction of a judge in a similar proceeding. Id. 4. SAME-SAME-CORPORATION-The respondent corporation having, by advertisement, by their pamphlets and letter-heads, and by the whole tenor of their correspondence with clients, put themselves before the public as patent attorneys, cannot be heard to deny that they are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner simply because they are in fact a corporation not legally competent to practice law. Id. 5. SAME RULES OF EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF-In proceedings under a rule to show cause why an attorney should not be disbarred, it is not necessary that the rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings be strictly observed, such proceeding being in its nature civil. (Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S., 265.) Nor is it necessary in proceedings of this nature that offenses be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the investigation be conducted with fairness and the respondents be afforded ample opportunity to explain the transactions on which the charges were based and to vindicate their conduct in reference thereto. (Randall v. Bingham, 7 Wall., 523.) Id. 6. SAME-FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO APPEAR IN HIS OWN BEHALF-Since disbarment proceedings in this Office are not quasi criminal in character, the failure of a respondent in such proceedings to appear and testify in his own behalf, as well as his failure to exhibit to the inspection of the Office the organization and details of his business, may properly be made subjects for consideration in arriving at a conclusion. Id. 7. SAME-DUTY OF AN ATTORNEY TO EXPLAIN PRACTICES CHARGED TO INVOLVE GROSS MISCONDUCT-When an attorney is charged with dishonest practices before this Office, since the character of such practices is peculiarly within his own knowledge, it is not only competent for him to testify concerning them, but it is his duty to himself, to the Patent Office, and to the public to show, if he can, that such practices are legitimate and proper. Id. 8. SAME-PROPER SUBJECTS OF INQUIRY-The methods employed by the respondent corporation in gathering in for prosecution applications for patent, the methods employed by the corporation in making searches on inventions, the correspondence carried on with clients, the methods employed for securing fees from clients for foreign patents, for advertising inventions for sale, for appealing rejected applications, in general the methods employed to get money from clients, may be inquired into by the Commissioner, not only as bearing on the fitness of J W to continue in practice, but as bearing on the fitness of the corporation to continue in practice, either directly or through its agent. It is impossible in this inquiry to separate the president of the corporation from the corporation of which he is president. Id. 9. SAME-RESPONSIBILITY OF A CORPoration for Acts of an AGENT IN PROFESSIONAL MATTERS-It appearing that while applications for patent were filed in the name of J W as attorney all correspondence with clients was carried on in the name of the corporation J W & Co., J W being the president thereof, J W is to be considered as merely the agent of the corporation and the corporation must and should be held responsible for his Id. acts. 10. SAME-PRACTITIONERS-PRESUMPTION AS TO RESPONSIBILITY-The name of JW having appeared continuously since 1893 on papers filed in this Office, ATTORNEYS-Continued. he cannot be presumed to be ignorant of the requirements of attorneys or agents practicing before this Office. As president of the corporation he must be held to have been cognizant of and responsible for whatever has been done by the corporation or its employees. Id. 11. THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS-If it were true that a solicitor might falsely and deceitfully obtain business from clients, might utilize the offer of the Government to grant patents to defraud citizens, might advise the public falsely that advice would be given free, and might fraudulently induce clients to intrust the prosecution of claims to him without notice of such things being taken by the head of the proper Department, the result would be the organization of combines of confidence men to plunder the public. It is the duty of the head of each Department to protect the public in its relations to such Department. Id. 12. DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS-STRICTNESS REQUIRED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF DISHONEST PRACTICES-When the evil results of the business methods of a practitioner have effected great injury upon the Patent Office and have placed the practice before this Bureau upon a low moral plane, if the result of dealing with such practices slightingly would be to make the Office an apologist therefor, and a participant in reprehensible conduct, and thus bring the Government and its administration into contempt, strict dealing will be observed in any investigation concerning such methods. Id. 13. ADVERTISEMENTS, MISREPRESENTATION BY-An advertisement of an "$1,800 prize offer," when the largest prize actually paid was $150, was false and misleading, and was known to be so by the respondents. Whether it called for expenditure on the part of any one is not material. It was misrepresentation for a purpose, that purpose being to secure the name and address of would-be patentees in order to secure fees from them. Id. 14. NOTICE OF PATENTS Procured-DeCEPTIVE-A notice that the number of patents procured in a certain week was 391 and that 124 were sold, when stamped on a letter-head which stated the business of the respondents to be the soliciting of patents and the sale of patents, Held to have been intended as a statement of the number of patents procured that week by the respondents and the number of patents sold by them, and is deceptive and misleading. Id. 15. COMPETITION FOR PRIZES-UNFAIR COMPETITION-A prize competition open only to those who have paid money to the respondents clearly has nothing philanthropic or generous about it, is not intended for broadly stimulating invention, but is intended solely to boom respondents' business. It is necessary to a fair competition that the jury or board of awards should be impartial, disinterested men, competent to decide on the merits, and it is also necessary that such jury or board should see and examine the invention submitted. To permit the merit of inventions to be finally passed upon by inexperienced and incompetent searchers is to make the competition a mere farce and a fraud. Id. 16. SIMPLE INVENTIONS-MISREPRESENTATION-GROSS MISCONDUCT-To encourage would-be patentees to believe there is a great demand for the most simple inventions, when in fact there is no such demand, to endeavor to impress upon the public a false and exaggerated idea of the value of simple inventions, to induce ignorant persons to believe that old and well-tried fields of invention are new and untried fields in which inventions of value can be readily made by them, all for the purpose of inducing the payment of fees for searches and for other purposes, is demoralizing and deceptive and amounts to gross misconduct. Id. ATTORNEYS-Continued. 17. SAME DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS AS to the Value of While it is true that some simple inventions which required little thought and little knowledge of the prior art on the part of the inventor have proved of value, such is not usually the case. The valuable inventions are those which are the result of hard work, careful study and experiment by those who have familiarized themselves with what others have done and with the real needs of the art. Further, it is only those simple inventions which are broadly new which are of any considerable value. Hence efforts on the part of parties representing themselves to be attorneys to create in the public mind an impression to a contrary effect are in the nature of fraud-are misleading. Id. 18. ADVICE AS TO PATENTABILITY AND SALABILITY-DECEPTIVE-An offer to advise free as to patentability and salability of any device a supposed inventor who had failed to respond to J W & Co.'s first letter with its accompanying papers, in view of the fact that the advice given was a mere statement that the device was of a patentable nature, but to determine its patentability a search at a cost of $5 would have to be made, and a statement that a successful device of this nature if patented immediately and properly handled would net its owner not less than so many thousand dollars is deceptive and a mere trick to reopen correspondence with the inventor to lead him on to send fees to J W & Co. Id. 19. VALUATIONS OF INVENTIONS-MISLEADING ESTIMATES-The fact that the expert chief of the sales department of J W & Co. placed values on inventions at sight, sometimes without even sight of the invention or even full description of it-without study of the invention, without inquiry as to its novelty, and without consultation of books—such valuation being a mere off hand opinion on which neither he nor any other person could have passed intelligent judgment without careful study and full knowledge of all material facts; the fact that this expert never failed to place a substantial value on every device submitted to him; the fact that this expert was one of the incorporators of J W & Co., and for a time one of its officers, all show that it was intended that all inventions should be reported to their clients as of very considerable value, without regard to their novelty or real value. Id. 20. Same-Same-The scheme, as carried out by J W & Co., of placing a valuation on inventions before their novelty was even looked into is deceptive and fraudulent on its face. It is utterly indefensible and clearly amounts to gross misconduct. The sending of a false valuation in a single case known to be, or which should be known to be, without value, where by reason of such valuation the inventor might be induced to part with a sum of money, indicates, at least, gross negligence. To make a practice of sending out false valuations indicates deliberate purpose. Id. 21. PRELIMINARY SEARCH-PROPER SEARCH-In order to disclose references that may exist in the records of the Patent Office which are accessible to the public, it is necessary that the search be made by a competent person skilled in this line of work, able to recognize a reference when he sees it, that this expert searcher take sufficient time to fully understand the invention on which he is making the search, and that he take sufficient time to make a thorough and complete examination of all classes of invention that may reasonably be supposed to have any bearing upon the invention. Id. 22. SAME-WHEN REPORT OF SEARCHER SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ATTORNEYAn attorney is not justified in reporting that a thorough examination of the records has been made and no reference found unless such search has been prosecuted by a competent searcher and in a thorough and careful manner, nor is he justified in accepting the favorable report of an inexperienced or |