CHANGE IN EDITORS The resignation of Mr. Max Tucker as Editor of the JOURNAL has been received and accepted with regret. Having received special training in journalism, and having entered whole heartedly into the work of editing this JOURNAL, Mr. Tucker has discharged the duties of the position with zeal and ability such as to set a high standard of excellence for this work. Good editorship like good English attracts attention for what it omits and avoids rather than by what it flaunts before the attention or presents to the eye. Dignity, sincerity and good judgment have characterized Mr. Tucker's work, and it is a matter of deep regret that conditions arising in connection with his personal affairs have cut short an editorial career that has given great satisfaction to those charged with responsibility for the conduct of the JOURNAL and that also gave much promise for its future prosperity. On behalf of the Society I desire to express sincere appreciation of Mr. Tucker's labors and loyalty during his term as Editor-in-Chief of the JOURNAL. The New Editor The Editorial Board following the custom that has prevailed heretofore, elected as successor to Max Tucker, resigned, Mr. Howard S. Miller as Editor-in-Chief of the PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY JOURNAL. Although Mr. Miller has been a member of the Examining corps several years. it seems proper to introduce him to our readers in his new capacity as Editor. Mr. Miller entered the Office as a fourth Assistant, July 3, 1916, being appointed from California. He took his degree in Electrical Engineering from Syracuse University in 1913, his M.A. degree from the University of California in 1915, and his LI..B. from George Washington University in 1919. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the District and the Court of Appeals. He served in Division 27 about one year and then went, on the Radio work where since Nov. 1917 he has had the same desk in two divisions, Division 51 having been split off from Division 16 in Aug. 1924. Mr. Miller brings to his new work a thorough education, several years of experience in the application of the principles of patent law, and the confidence of those who know him that his energy and ability will with the cooperation of his associates secure continued success and a wide field of usefulness for the JOURNAL. R. E. ADAMS, President. ALBERT W. KAISER ASSISTANT CHIEF CLERK Mr. Kaiser was born in Buffalo, N. Y., and was educated in the public and high schools of that city. He is also a graduate of the Emerson Institute of Washington, D. C.. at which place a special technical course was completed, and in addition, a complete course in mechanical drawing. At present he is a student of the class of 1928, National University Law School, Washington, D. C. He was appointed to the Patent Office September 8, 1903, and after considerable experience in the Manuscript and Photolithographic Division was advanced to Assistant Chief thereof on August 21, 1920, where he had direct charge of the Photolithographic and reproduction work. His training in this Division involved a large knowledge of detail and brought him in touch with much of the activities of the whole Office. His experience and knowledge and his well known efficiency in mastering the details of his position came to the attention of Mr. C. C. Henry at the time the latter was appointed Chief Clerk, and on February 15, 1923, Mr. Kaiser was appointed Assistant Chief Clerk. In that position he has shown the capacity his previous experience gave indication of, and he has been an inva nable aid to the succession of occupants of the Chief Clerk's post. WILLIAM H. OURAND CHIEF DRAFTSMAN William H. Ourand was born in Washington and attended the public schools, and also the Bostrom School of Technology of this city. He began working as a draftsman in the office of his father, Frank L. Ourand, who was one of the first patent draftsmen in the business in this city. He was appointed as a draftsman in the Patent Office April 1, 1906 and assigned to Division E until July 17, 1906, when he was transferred to the Drafting Division under the then Chief Draftsman, Captain Alexander Scott, where he served until 1917. Mr. Ourand was then employed with the Packard Motor Car Company for four and one half years in the department of Mr. Milton Tibbetts, patent counsel for that company, as a patent draftsman in Detroit, Michigan. Here he made drawings for the Liberty Motor and executed all of those which were filed in the Patent Office. After reinstatement in the Patent Office in August 1921, he became assistant Chief of Division and, upon the decease of D. W. Edelin, he was appointed Chief Draftsman April 18, 1924. There are now fourteen employees in the division, eight being draftsmen. The work has doubled since Mr. Edelin's time, both in the amount of work performed and moneys received, and at the same time the standards for the work passed have been raised. Mr. Ourand's outside interests have been along the line of athletics, including, baseball, football, swimming, rowing, and sailing. He rowed for three years with the Potomac Boat Club eight, and went with them twice to Philadelphia to contend in regatta events. He is a member of the Manor Golf Club at Norbeck, Maryland, and has his home at North Woodside. EDWARD G. SIGGERS Edward G. Siggers, a well known local patent attorney, died at his residence on March 16 after an illness of about two and a half months. He had practiced patent law in Washington continuously for about forty years: for a material portion of that time he was associated as a partner with Mr. C. A. Snow but for many years has conducted his own business. His acquaintance with the older examiners was large and his passing marks another regrettable change in the personnel of the "old guard" among local practitioners. Mr. Siggers was born in Virginia and came to this city when a boy. He took his law degree at National University. He is survived by two sons and a married daughter living in Chicago. The business heretofore conducted by Mr. Siggers will be carried on by his son, Philip E. Siggers, in association with Mr. Alva D. Adams. Both of these gentlemen are former members of the Examining Corps. PATENT LEGISLATION There is published in full in 357 O. G. 5 the text of the statutes mentioned in our comment in the April issue of the JOURNAL at pages 345 to 347 on "New Patent Legislation" relating to (1) Marking of patented articles, (2) Changes in filing fees, (3) Appeal before accounting in infringement suits, (4) Changes in time for amendments and other actions and in procedure on appeal in the Patent Office and in the courts, and (5) Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of the District of Columbia enlarged in suits under Sections 4915 and 4918 R. S. PATENT OFFICE REJECTIONS AS RES JUDICATA By EMERSON STRINGHAM The extent to which a party is concluded by a Patent Office rejection of a claim so as to prevent him from obtaining reconsideration in a different application, upon the merits, of the same claim or one substantially the same, has been carefully considered in a paper entitled "Res adjudicata as a ground for rejection," by William R. Ballard, read before the examining corps of the Patent Office March 18, 1915, and privately printed about that time. The paper was reprinted in the Journal of the Patent Office Society, Vol. V, pages 238-246 (March, 1923). In that paper the following decisions upon a Patent Office rejection as res judicata are cited: Nichols, 1870 C. D. 71; Gordon, 2 O. G. 29; 1872 C. D. 145; Arkell, 11 O. G. 1111; 1877 C. D. 73; Barratt, 14 App. D. C. 255; 87 O). G. 1075; 1899 C. D. 320; Kenny, 118 O. G. 2252; 1905 C. D. 441; Millett and Reed, 128 O. G. 2836; 1907 C. D. 177; The paper that has been mentioned considers not only office rejections as res judicata, but also considers office determinations in interference as res judicata. It will be appreciated that these two questions are entirely distinct. An interference proceeding has determined for at least some purposes the rights of two parties who have in effect been involved in litigation with each other. The question of whether to reopen a decision that has been made in a contest between private parties is altogether different from the question of the extent to which an applicant for a patent should be regarded as |