PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

which will not only slide down the inclined plane but float and be propelled by momentum upon the water at the foot of the inclined plane, Held to be anticipated and invalid. *Paul Boynton Company v. Morris Chute Company et al., 652.

44. OSTERIIOUT-MACHINE FOR CUTTING AND STITCHING BUTTONHOLES - No. 447,791-NON-INFRINGEMENT-Letters Patent No. 447,791, granted March 10, 1891, to James B. Osterhout, for a machine for cutting and stitching buttonholes, are not infringed by a machine made in accordance with the patent to Tebbetts and Doggett, No. 438, 655. (72 Fed. Rep., 185, reversed.) *National Machine Company v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company, 482. 45. PARK-AIR BRAKE-NO. 393, 784-NOT INFRINGED-Letters Patent No. 393,784, granted December 4, 1888, to Harvey S. Park, for an air-brake. examined and Held not infringed. *Westinghouse Air Brake Company v. New York Air Brake Company et al., 475.

46. POTTS-CLAY-DISINTEgrator-Nos. 322,393 AND 368,898-VOID-Letters Patent No. 322,393, granted July 14, 1885, and No. 368,898, granted August 23, 1887, both to C. and A. Potts, examined and in view of the prior art Held void for want of novelty. *Potts & Co. v. Creager et al., 521.

47. RANDALL-ADVERTISING-RACK-No. 380,696-INVALIDITY-INFRINGEMENT— Claim 1 of Letters Patent No. 380,696, granted April 10, 1888, to Isaac H. Randall, for an advertising-rack for street-cars, construed and Held that the unnecessary designation of certain elements does not invalidate the claim; that the device covered is new, useful, and not anticipated, and that the claim is infringed. *American Street Car Advertising Company v. Newton Street Railway Company et al., 688.

48. RICE MOTOR-SUSPENSION FOR RAILWAY-WORK - No. 448,260 - INFRINGEMENT-Letters Patent No. 448,260, dated March 17, 1891, to Edwin Wilbur Rice, for improvements in motor-suspension for railway-work, examined and Held not infringed. *Thomson-Houston Electric Company v. Athol and Orange Street Railway Company, 694.

49. ROBERTSON-CISTERN-No. 245,318-TERM EXPIRed-Foreign PATENT-Letters Patent No. 245,318, granted August 9, 1881, to John Robertson, for an improvement in supply-tanks, appears to be for the same invention in substance as Canadian patent to same inventor, and expired with the latter patent. J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Henry McShane Manufacturing Company, 410. 50. ROSE-TUBULAR UMBRELLA-STICK-No. 504,944-VALID-INFRINGED-Letters Patent No. 504,944, issued September 12, 1893, to John Rose, for improvements in tubular umbrella-sticks, Held to be valid and infringed. *Rose v. Hirsh et al., 245.

51. SAME-UMBRELLA-CASE-No. 504,945-NOT INFRINGED-Letters Patent No. 504,945, issued September 12, 1893, to John Rose, for improvements in umbrella-cases, construed and Held not infringed. *Id.

52. SAME DISSENTING OPINION-Acheson, J., dissented from the conclusion which the majority of the court reached with respect to Patent No. 504,945. *Id.

53. RUSSELL-Pulp-Digester-REISSUE No. 11,282-VALID AND INFRINGED— Reissue Patent No. 11,282, dated November 15, 1892, to George F. Russell, for improvements in pulp-digesters, consisting of an outer shell and a continuous lining of cement, examined and Held to be valid and infringed. *American Sulphite Pulp Company v. Howland Falls Pulp Company, 559.

54. SCHULTZ-TAWING LEATHER-Nos. 291,784 AND 291,785-VALID-Letters Patent Nos. 291,784 and 291,785, granted January 8, 1884, to Augustus Schultz, for processes of tawing hides and skins, examined and Held valid. Tannage Patent Company v. Adams et al., 353.

PARTICULAR PATENTS-Continued.

55. SCHULTZE-Coin-ContrOLLED APPARATUS-NOS. 502,891 AND 514,664INVALID LACK OF UTILITY-GAMBLING PURPOSES-Letters Patent Nos. 502,891 and 514,664, granted to Gustav F. W. Schultze August 8, 1893, and February 13, 1894, respectively, for improvements in coin-controlled apparatus, Held invalid for want of utility, as the only use to which the inventions have been put or applied is for gambling purposes. *Schultze v. Holtz et al., 781.

56. SNYDER-TEACHING-CHART-ALLOWABLE -- Application of Louise Snyder examined in view of references cited thereto and Held allowable. *Snyder v. Fisher, Acting Commissioner of Patents, 254.

57. SOOY-BALING-PRESS-No. 394,623-VALID-INFRINGED-Claims 1 and 2 of Letters Patent No. 394,623, granted December 18, 1888, to Ephraim C. Sooy, for a baling-press, Held not anticipated by certain prior patents and also Held infringed. *Kansas City Hay-Press Company v. Devol et al., 712. 58. SAME-SAME-No. 386,360-NOT INFRINGED-Claim 1 of Letters Patent No. 386,360, granted July 17, 1888, to Ephraim C. Sooy, for a baling press, construed and Held not infringed. *Id.

59. SAME-SAME-NO. 358,898-DOUBTFUL VALIDITY-NOT INFRINGED-Claim 1 of Letters Patent No. 358,898, granted March 8, 1887, to Ephraim C. Sooy, for a baling-press, considered and patentable novelty Held doubtful. In any event the patentee should be limited to the precise form of construction described in his patent, and as thus construed the claim is not infringed. *Id. 60. SAME-SAME-NO. 456,239-NOT INFRINGED-Letters Patent No. 456,239, granted July 21, 1891, to Ephraim C. Sooy, for a baling-press, one element of which is a curved spring-plate upon the vibrating end of a pitman, is not infringed by a press which lacks this element. *Id.

61. VAN DEPOELE-SUSPENDED SWITCH AND TRAVELING CONTACT FOR ELECTRIC RAILWAYS-No. 397,451-VALIDITY-PRIOR PATENT-Letters Patent No. 424,695, granted April 1, 1890, to Charles J. Van Depoele, for improvements in suspended switches for electric railways, is not invalid because of the prior issuance of Patent No. 397,451, for certain improvements on the broad invention covered by the first-named patent, the application for which was filed more than a year before that of Patent No. 397,451. *Thomson-Houston Electric Company v. Ohio Brass Company et al., 579.

62. SAME-TRAVELING CONTACT FOR ELECTRIC RAILWAYS-No. 495,443-SAMELetters Patent No. 495,443, granted April 11, 1893, to Charles J. Van Depoele, for improvements in suspended switches and traveling contacts for electric railways, not held invalid upon an appeal from a preliminary injunction heard upon affidavits and without a full review of the art because of the prior issuance to the same inventor of Patent No. 424,695, covering inventions of a similar character. *Id.

63. SAME-SAME-SAME-VOID-CLAIMED IN PRIOR PATENT TO SAME INVENTOR— Claims 6, 7, 8, 12, and 16 of Letters Patent No. 495,443, granted April 11, 1893, to the administrators of Charles J. Van Depoele, for a traveling contact for electric railways, construed and Held to be void because the invention covered thereby had been previously claimed by the same inventor in Letters Patent No. 424,695, dated April 1, 1890. Thomson-Houston Electric Company v. Hoosick Railway Company, 612.

64. WARDWELL-Method oF WINDING COPS OR BALLS-No. 480,158-INVALIDLetters Patent No. 480,158, granted August 2, 1892, to Joseph R. Leeson, assignee of Simon W. Wardwell, Jr., for a method of winding cops, construed and Held, in view of the state of the prior art, to cover no patentable novelty. Universal Winding Company v. Willimantic Linen Company, 625. 65. SAME-Cor-No. 486,745-VOID-Letters Patent No. 486,745, granted November 22, 1892, to Joseph R. Leeson, assignee of Simon W. Wardwell, Jr., for a cop, Held to be void by reason of lack of patentable novelty. *Id.

PARTICULAR PATFNTS-Continued.

66. WATSON-TELEPHONE-SWITCH-No. 270,522-VOID-Letters Patent No. 270,522, granted January 9, 1883, to the American Bell Telephone Company as assignee of Thomas A. Watson, for an improvement in telephone-switches, is void in view of the prior state of the art, as it involves only several expedients in arranging a subscriber's outfit. * Western Electric Company v. Western Telephone Construction Company et al., 657. 67. WESTINGHOUSE-AUTOMATIC-BRAKE MECHANISM-Nos. 360,070 and 376,837— INFRINGED-Letters Patent No. 360,070, granted March 29, 1887, and No. 376,837, granted January 24, 1888, to George Westinghouse, Jr., for fluidpressure automatic-brake mechanism, each examined and Held infringed. *Westinghouse Air Brake Company v. New York Air Brake Company et al., 475. 68. WILLCOX-SEWING-MACHINE-NO. 472,094-INFRINGEMENT-Claims 2 and 5 of Letters Patent No. 472,094, granted April 5, 1892, to Charles H. Willcox, for a sewing-machine, construed and Held that defendants' device is not found in the elements of these claims without unduly straining the doctrine of equivalents. *Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Company v. Merrow Machine Company et al., 746.

69. SAME-SAME-No. 472,095-VALIDITY — INFRINGEMENT - Claim 2 of Letters Patent No. 472,095, granted April 5, 1892, to Charles H. Willcox, for a sewingmachine, is of doubtful validity and it cannot be construed to cover defendants' device without unduly straining the doctrine of equivalents. *Id. 70. WITTING-DISPENSING APPARATUS FOR SODA-WATER-NO. 414,272—VOIDLetters Patent No. 414,272, granted November 5, 1889, to Theodore I. Witting, for improvements in dispensing apparatus for soda-water, examined in view of the prior art and Held void for want of invention. *Tarrant & Co. v. Hoff, 795.

PARTIES TO INTERFERENCE. See Secretary of the Interior, 5.

PARTIES TO SUIT. See Cancellation of Patents, 4; Delay in Bringing Suit; Infringe

ment, 1, 2, 3, 19, 20, 21, 22; Mandamus, 7; Suits for Infringement.

1. ESTOPPEL BY FORMER SILENCE-Under the rule that if one was silent when it was his duty to speak he shall not be permitted to speak when he should be silent. Since defendants when threatened with a former suit upon the patent now sued upon failed to claim any interest in said patent, they should not be permitted to assert it now. *Independent Electric Company v. Jeffrey Manufacturing Company et al., 287.

2. CUSTOMS DUTIES-FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS-INTERVENTION BY PATENT OWNER-A patent owner who is suing an importer for infringemeut by the importation of infringing goods which have been detained by the customs officials and libeled for forfeiture because of fraudulent undervaluation may for the protection of his interests be permitted to intervene in the forfeiture proceedings on giving proper security. *United States v. One Case Chemical Compound et al., 692.

PATENTABILITY. See Commissioner of Patents; Interference, 18, 19, 27, 33; Invention; Utility.

1. PROCESS-NON-PATENTABLE-A process which employs low heat for a long time is not patentable over another which uses a high heat for a short time when the result-namely, the partial distillation of coal-is the same in both cases. Ex parte Musgrave and Nye, 11.

2. DEGREE OF UTILITY-The degree of utility of a device is unimportant in determining whether a device be patentable. If the invention is not frivolous or prejudicial to the public and has any degree of usefuluess, no matter how slight the practical utility, then within the meaning of the law it is useful and may be patented. Er parte Sanche, 32.

PATENT OFFICE RECORDS.

Applications.

See Applications, 3, 4, 5, 6; Copies of Pending

PATENTS. See Assignments, 4; Attorneys, 43; Cancellation of Patents; Construction of Specifications and Patents; Contracts, 2, 3; Delay in Issuing Patent; Grani of Patent; Interference, 13, 14; Monopoly; Particular Patents; Reissue, 3, 4, 5; Use and Sale of Patented Articles, 2.

RIGHTS UNDER PATENT SUBJECT TO GENERAL LAW-The property right of a patentee is but a property right, and is subject to the general law of the land. He may not, by virtue of his patent, make illegal contracts or do any other illegal acts. A prohibited business is not protected by the patent laws because it is conducted through instrumentalities which are the subject of patent-rights. * Heaton-Peninsular Button Fastener Company v. Eureka Specialty Company et al., 216.

PATENTS TO DIFFERENT PARTIES.
Patents, 29.

PAYMENT OF FEES.

See Fees; Final Fee.

PETITION. See Examiners, 2.

See Construction of Specifications and

PIONEER INVENTION. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 7, 16, 19, 24, 32. POSTAL FACILITIES FRAUDULENTLY USED. See Attorneys, 44.

POWER OF ATTORNEY.

COUPLED WITH INTEREST-REVOCATION-A power of attorney coupled with a promise to pay to the attorney ten per cent of all money received for the invention does not give him such an interest in the invention as to render the said power of attorney irrevocable, since, although such power was given for valuable consideration, the interest which the attorney has in the invention exists in futuro, and is an equitable, not a legal, interest. Ex parte Firsching, 49.

PRACTICE IN THE COURTS. See Appeal; Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 22; Burden of Proof; Cancellation of Patents, 3, 4; Circuit Courts of the United States, 2; Citizens of Same State; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 9, 13, 18, 40; Contracts, 1, 2, 3, 4; Decree; Defense, 1, 4; Delay in Bringing Suit; Demurrer; Evidence, 1; Infringement, 18; Injunction, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14; Interference, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; Laches; Mandamus; Multifariousness; Parties to Suit; Priority of Invention, 2, 3; Public Use and Sale, 2; Rehearing, 1. 2. 3; Reissue; Secretary of the Interior, 3, 4; Suits for Infringement, 2, 3; Supreme Court of the United States; Trade-Marks, 3.

1. EQUITY SUIT-WAIVER OF ANSWER UNDER OATH-FAILURE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES-ANSWER BY CORPORATION-When it is uged by the defendant, a corporation, in justification of failure to answer certain interrogatories propounded that the complainants' waiver of an answer under oath is a waiver of all right to exceptions for insufficiency, Held that, the cause being against a corporation only, an answer under oath, even if not waived by the bill, could not have been required. Corporations answer under the sanction and solemnity of their seals only. But whether defendant answers under oath or under corporate seal, when oaths are waived, they are required to answer fully on every material issue. *National Hollow Brake Beam Company et al. v. Interchangeable Brake Beam Company, 739.

2. SAME-SAME PURPOSE OF WAIVER-The waiver of an oath in any case is made by the complainant for the purpose of depriving the defendant of the advantage of his answer as evidence in his favor. If no such waiver is made, a sworn answer is taken as evidence in favor of the defendant so forceful as to require two witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances to overcome it. Id.

3. SAME-SAME-SAME-ANSWER AS PLEADING

FULLNESS OF ANSWER-The sole purpose of a waiver of an oath to an answer is to affect the evidential character and value of the answer. It has nothing to do with the answer as a

PRACTICE IN THE COURTS-Continued.

pleading, and the rule prevails that the defendant must answer fairly fully to each and every material fact alleged in the bill. This fair and full answer should serve the purpose of eliminating many undisputed facts from the case. *Id.

4. RULES OF THE COURT-EQUITY RULE 39-ANSWER-I'LEA-Equity Rule 39 discussed and construed.

Id.

PRACTICE IN THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. See Attorneys, 51.

PRACTICE IN THE PATENT OFFICE. See Appealed Cases; Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 8; Applications, 2, 3; Attorneys, 5, 6; Claims; Commissioner of Patents; Copies of Pending Applications; Decisions of the Examiners-in-Chief, 1,2; Delay in Issuing Patents; Designs,6; Diligence; Division of Application; Drawings, 2; Examination of Applications; Examiners, 2; Grant of Patent; Interference; New Matter; Oath; Rehearing, 4, 5, 6; Rejected Cases; Reopening of Rejected Cases; Witnesses, 2.

PRACTICE OF THE OFFICE SHOULD BE STABLE-RULE STARE DECISIS-Where the practice of the Office is settled, it should be followed, unless there are very good reasons for changing it. The rule stare decisis must prevail in the Patent Office as in the courts. McCormick v. Cleal, 55.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. See Interference, 18, 36, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50.
PRINTED PUBLICATIONS.

TRADE CIRCULAR—A mere trade circular never actually published or intended for general use, or accessible to the public, is not such a printed publication as would anticipate a patent, although it may have been for a number of years in the possession of a witness. * Britton et al. v. White Manufacturing Company, 508.

PRIOR ADJUDICATION. See Injunction, 7, 9.

PRIOR DECISIONS. See Priority of Invention, 2.

PRIOR PATENTS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35; Particular Patents, 61, 62, 63.

PRIORITY OF INVENTION. See Appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 3, 4; Burden of Proof, 1; Conception of Invention; Delay in Filing Application; Drawings, 1; Evidence; Interference, 2, 3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47; Particular Patents, 9, 10, 34, 38, 39; Reduction to Practice, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11.

1. CONDUCT OF APPELLANT-PRESUMPTION AS TO INVENTORSHIP-The conduct of the appellant Hill and of his assignee, the Sheldon Axle Company, toward the appellee for four months after their alleged discovery of the issue of a patent to the latter is wholly irreconcilable with any other theory than that they recognized the appellee as the true inventor of the device in controversy. *Hill et al. v. Parmelee, 214.

2. DECISION OF THE PATENT OFFICE PRIMA FACIE CONTROLLING IN SUIT, UNDER REVISED STATUTES 4915-A decision of the Patent Office as to priority of invention must be accepted as controlling upon that question of fact in any subsequent suit between the parties, unless the contrary is established by testimony which carries thorough conviction. (Citing Morgan v. Daniels, C. D., 1894, 285; 67 O. G., 811; 153 U. S., 124, 125.) *Standard Cartridge Company et al. v. Peters Cartridge Company, 257.

3. EVIDENCE-QUANTUM NECESSARY IN A SUIT UNDER REVISED STATUTES 4915It is not enough to justify a court in saying that the Patent Office was in error in a decision upon a question of priority that the declarations and admissions of the successful contestant cast discredit upon him as a witThe evidence in the nature of admissions must make it clear that the evidence supporting the action of the Office cannot be true. *Id.

ness.