Topliff v. Topliff et al., 145 U. S. 156. Townsend v. Smith, 17 C. C. P. A. 647. Traitel. Ex parte, 25 O. G. 783. Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 22 F. (2d) 259. Traver v. Brown, 14 App. D. C. 34. Truax v. Childs Co., 162 F. 917. Try-Me Beverage Co. v. Metropole, 25 F. (2d) 138. Turner v. Lanter Piano Co., 248 F. 933 Tyler v. Galloway, 12 F. 567_. Page 134, 246 148, 320, 679 624 119 345, 393 453 134 695 562 710 747 Typewriter Hilliardized, Inc., v. Corona Typewriter Co., 43 F. (2d) 961- U Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Elliott-Fisher Co., 165 F. 927– 76 53 Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Waterbury et al., 39 F. 389.... 436, 710 Union Typewriter Co. v. L C Smith & Bros. Typewriter Co., 173 F. 288_ United States Gypsum Co. v. Plastoid Prod., 18 C. C. P. A. 954– 642 91, 418 Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Thompson, 258 Fed. 239. Van Auken, etc., v. Cummings, 18 C. C. P. A. 1250_ Van Camp Sea Food, Inc., v. Westgate Sea Products: 28 F. (2d) 957. 18 C. C. P. A. 1311. Vanore v. Improta, 58 App. D. C. 130. 377 461 527, 567 575, 652 129, 320 Victor Stove Company v. Hall-Neal Furnace Co., 58 App. D. C. 52____ 187, 544 Voorhees. In re, 17 C. C. P. A. 1162. Waltke & Co., William, v. Geo. H. Schafer & Co., 49 App. D. C. 254. 52 137, 167 Warner & Co. v. Lilly & Co., 265 U. S. 526_. 588 Warner-Patterson Co. v. Malcomb, 17 C. C. P. A. 984 403, 626 Weber Electric Company v. Freeman Electric Company, 256 U. S. 668 719 182, 664 Western Electric Co. v. La Rue, 139 U. S. 601. 207 Western Electric Company v. Martin, 39 App. D. C. 147. 158 Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co., 170 U. S. 537. 17 Westinghouse v. Duncan, 2 App. D. C. 131. 409 Westinghouse Elec. &. Elec. Mfg. Co. v. DeForest, 21 F. (2d) 918... Wietzel v. Lacy, 17 C. C. P. A. 943. Wilcox and Gibbs S. M. Co. v. The Merrow Mach. Co., 1898 C. D. 584. Williams. In re, 17 C. C. P. A. 718_ 233 392 368 137, 206 Williams v. Barnard, 41 F. 358. Williams Co. v. Miller et al., 107 F. 290_ Williams Co., J. B., v. Williams, 18 C. C. P. A. 1133. Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corp. v. The Butler Company, 17 C. C. Williamson Candy Co. v. Ucanco Candy Co., 3 F. (2d) 655. Wilson v. Janes, 3 Blatch. 227. Winans v. Denmead, 56 U. S. 329 Windle v. Parks & Woolson Machine Co., 134 F. 381_ Winslow v. Austin, 14 App. D. C. 137__ Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. 238 F. 929. Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Gibbons Box Co., 25 F. (2d) 363. Wirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac, etc., 37 F. (2d) 830_ Woods v. Poor, 29 App. D. C. 397– Woods & Sons, John, v. Carl, 203 U. S. 358. Woodsome. In re, 56 App. D. C. 138. Page 710 658 481, 638 74 481 733 27 749 593 723 721 345, 436, 473 155 730 210, 473 165 202, 731 382 382 Woolwine. Ex parte, 97 O. G. 1373. Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co., 187 U. S. 516__. Worcester Brewing Corporation v. Rueter & Company, 30 App. D. C. 428_ DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 1931 EX PARTE MCBRIDES THEATRE TICKET OFFICES, INC. Decided April 16, 1931 407 O. G. 1117 TRADE-MARKS-THEATRE TICKETS-MERCHANDISE. Theatre tickets Held to be merely tokens of service and not merchandise within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Act and a mark used thereon properly refused registration. ON APPEAL. Mr. E. F. Wenderoth for applicant. KINNAN, First Assistant Commissioner: The applicant has appealed from the decision of the Examiner of Trade-Marks denying registration under the ten-year proviso of the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905, as amended, of the name "McBride's" as a trade-mark applied to tickets for amusement enterprises. Registration was refused on the ground that the goods upon which the name is used are merely tokens of service and not goods or merchandise which are sold and consequently the trade-mark is not "used in commerce." The applicant purchases and resells theatre tickets. These tickets, as well stated by the Examiner, obviously have no intrinsic value but are mere evidences of a contract entered into between the seller and the purchaser to furnish the latter an entertainment. The Examiner has relied upon certain adjudicated cases in support of his ruling and the applicant has invited attention to various additional adjudicated cases upon which reliance is placed in support of the appeal. A review of the cases referred to by the applicant fails to support the contention that the bits of pasteboard in themselves possess, any intrinsic value or are goods or merchandise in any sense save that they are mere evidence that their owners have purchased a right to certain service of the nature and to be rendered at a time indicated upon the ticket. While the language of some of these adjudicated cases might be construed to indicate property in the bit of pasteboard comprising the ticket yet a careful reading of such cases shows clearly enough that property or the thing that is sold resides in a right to enjoy or be present at an entertainment. It is deemed plain the applicant is not entitled to the registration sought. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. THOMPSON v. KELLER Decided May 23, 1931 407 O. G. 1117 INTERFERENCE-PATENT AND APPLICATION-APPLICATION FOR REISSUE OF PATENT-OPEN TO INSPECTION BY OPPOSING PARTY. Where an applicant for the reissue of a patent is involved in interference on the original patent, the application for reissue will, ordinarily, be open to inspection by the interfering party, upon his request. RECOMMENDATION of the Examiner of Interferences. Messrs. Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds for Thompson. Mr. De Witt C. Tanner, Mr. John G. Roberts, Mr. Joel C. R. Palmer, and Mr. E. W. Adams for Keller. KINNAN, First Assistant Commissioner: The Examiner of Interferences under date of May 18, 1931, has submitted to the Commissioner a recommendation that the Thompson reissue application Serial No. 419,692 be made special. A copy of the recommendation of the Examiner of Interferences is enclosed. The record of the interference is fully set forth in a decision of the Examiner of Interferences dated May 18, 1931, suspending "proceedings in this interference until the Thompson reissue application has been finally disposed of and Thompson has been thus definitely limited to one of his present two conflicting positions." The party Keller copied certain claims from the Thompson patent and the interference resulted. The application for reissue of the Thompson patent was filed before the declaration of the interference and in such reissue application the claims involved in the interference were omitted although many other claims additional to those of the original patent were made in the reissue application. There has been filed in the interference record a statement of counsel for the applicant for reissue that no claims appear in this reissue application which could be made in the application of Keller with which the patentee is in interference. It is clear this interference should not be determined or terminated until the reissue application filed by the party Thompson is either granted or abandoned, to the end that the status of the original Thompson patent be first finally settled. Should the party Thompson however unduly delay the prosecution of his reissue application the party Keller may, upon renewed motion, again raise the question of entering judgment in the interference prior to the final disposition. of the reissue application. Under the conditions here present it is thought the party Keller should, in order to protect his interests, be in position to know the status of the reissue application since obviously there may be presented at any time before final allowance of such reissue application claims which would interfere with subject matter claimed by the party Keller. Where therefore, as in the present case, an applicant for reissue of a patent is involved in an interference as to the original patent, the reissue application will, ordinarily, be open during the interference for inspection by the interfering party, upon his request, to the end that the entire controversy between the parties may be terminated in one proceeding. The present situation of the instant interference justifies vacating my decision of March 24, 1931, in which the party Keller was denied access to the reissue application, and it is now held that such party may during the interference have access to the Thompson reissue application. Applications for reissue of patents are under the rules made special and the Examiner will so far as practicable expedite the prosecution of the reissue application. To the extent indicated, the recommendation of the Examiner of Interferences is approved. EX PARTE HOLMES Decided May 28, 1928 DIVISION-ELECTRIC MOTORS FOR MINING MACHINES AND MINING MACHINES. Division Held properly required between claims which, while mentioning a mining machine in the preamble, recite as elements only motor structure of general application and features of construction provided for preventing sparks produced by the motor from igniting surrounding gas, and claims which include not only the motor and its protective means, but also the cutting and feeding mechanism of the mining machine and frame structure of special use only with such a machine. [This application has resulted in Patent No. 1,720,364, July 9, 1929] APPEAL from Examiners in Chief. Messrs, Cushman Bryant & Darby for the appellant. KINNAN, First Assistant Commissioner: Applicant has appealed from the decision of the Examiners in Chief affirming that of the Examiner requiring division between the group of claims 1 to 9, inclusive, and 16, directed to an electric motor structure and the group of claims 10 to 15, inclusive, drawn more specifically to a mining machine. The following claims are illustrative of the two groups: 7. A mining machine having an electric motor, an enclosure therefor having flame-proof inlets and outlets communicating with the atmosphere, a main frame secured to said enclosure, power transmission means carried by said main |