oped and systems for signaling to submarines. The important question of static and other interference has produced much activity, giving rise to applications of the loop antenna and to various special arrangements of extended aerials, and changes both in receivers and transmitters. The small loop or coil has been found useful in further development in directive transmission, and in the aeroplane radio compass.

In the case of so-called high power stations, i.e., of the Poulson arc type, the controller has been greatly improved, and considerable use has been made of audio-frequency in telegraphy, telephony and radio torpedo control at short distances.

Vacuum tube generators and amplitude control, or "modulation", of the generated oscillations have been constantly improved; and their easy adaptation to wire telephony or to composited systems has opened up a large field of improvement, especially in long distance multiplex telephony, so that now what was once a single communication line, telegraph or telephone, is one providing several "channels" for simultaneous communication. This has naturally led to many improvements in balancing networks, including filters, loading coils, etc., and in the amplifier or relay elements. This last feature has been attended by a great development in the so-called vacuum tube relay and the repeaters, of which it generally forms a part. Balancing means are automatically selected and connected in repeater systems and for use in composite and phantom circuits. Multi-stage amplifiers are now practicable. Developments in the vacuum tube have been along the lines of electrode arrangement and composition involving the new use of many rare metals, and salts of various gas contents involving rare gases, of the cooling of the tubes, and of circuit connections therewith.

In telephony, strictly regarded, the tremendous advance of automatic development has continued, many improvements being directed toward greater applicability of automatic switching, this automatic type being made to furnish all the service of a manual system. Much attention has been given the private automatic exchange, also to simplex and phantom adaptations, and refinement and variation in switch structure itself.

It is firmly believed that this vast store of more or less valuable information and knowledge called into existence under stress of war conditions can and will have an important bearing on the great constructive work now confronting the nation and exert a stimulating influence on the peaceful arts.

79. (1) A design (2) patent may be obtained by any person who has invented any new, original, and ornamental (3) design for an article of manufacture. (4) not known or used by others in this country before his invention thereof, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention thereof, or more than two years prior to his application, and not caused to be patented by him in a foreign country on an application filed more than four months before his application in this country, and not in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application, unless the same is proved to have been abandoned, upon payment of the fees required by law and other due proceedings had, the same as in cases of inventions or discoveries.

(1) The language of Rule 79 is substantially similar to that found in Sections 4929 and 4933 R. S. The limitations placed on the right to obtain a patent also are substantially the same as those which are found in Sec. 4886 R. S., which relate to mechanical patents. The significance of the corresponding language found in this rule and Sec. 4886 R. S. is materially the same. Explanations will therefore be confined to the meaning of the following terms, "design," "ornamental," and "article of manufacture," contained in Sec. 4929 R. S.

"Designs."

(2) Abstractly considered, a design, like a mechanical invention, must first exist in the mind of the inventor, and as such is a product of the creative imagination. But with such abstraction Sec. 4929 has little if anything to do. It is only as this abstraction is embodied in some concrete article of manufacture that it is ordinarily a subject of inquiry by this Office. The following defi

nitions relate to designs embodied in articles of manufacture. Robinson's definition (Sec. 200) is:

"A design is an instrument created by the imposition upon a physical substance of some peculiar shape or ornamentation which produces a particular impression upon the human eye, and through the eye upon the mind."

Another definition is found in the case of Pelouze Scale & Mfg. Co. v. American Cutlery Co. et al., 102 F. R., 916:

"Design, in the view of the patent law, is that characteristic of a physical substance which, by means of lines, images, configuration and the like, taken as a whole, makes an impression, through the eye upon the mind of the observer. The essence of a design resides, not in the elements individually, nor in their method of arrangement, but in their tout ensemble, in that indefinable whole that awakens some sensation in the observer's mind. Impressions thus imparted may be complex or simple; in one a mingled impression of gracefulness and strength, in another the impression of strength alone. But whatever the impression, there is attached in the mind of the observer, to the object observed, a sense of uniqueness and character."

"Ornamental.”

(3) The word ornamental as used in connection with articles of manufacture indicates an article which produces a pleasing appearance on the eye of the observer. It is sometimes stated that if the article of manufacture is beautiful it is also ornamental within the meaning of the statute. The appearance may be grotesque, bizarre, or even ludicrous, and yet be ornamental within the meaning of the statute. Such effects have to the beautiful a relation similar to what in music discords have to concords. They both form part of a larger whole that may be properly comprehended under the terms beauty or harmony, respectively. The pleasing effect produced on the eye must involve invention in order to be patentable.

Ex parte Knothe,

Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 636 O. G.,
Rowe v. Blodgett & Clapp,
Foster v. Crossin,

In re Schraubstadter,

102 O. G.. 1294; C. D. 1903, 42; 912: C. D. 1893, 324; 98 O. G., 1286; C. D. 1902, 583; 54 O. G., 1113: C. D. 1891, 304; 120 O. G., 1167; C. D. 1906, 541;

"Article of Manufacture."

(4) The purpose of the statutes relating to the grant of copyrights and patents for designs is to encourage the production of things which are ornamental or artistic; Gorham Company v. White 26. G. 592; 14 Wall 511.

There are many things which are clearly articles of manufacture and many that are clearly not articles of manufacture, and some, as for instance a statuette, which it is difficult to classify properly, and may be considered as belonging in either class. In Sec. 4929 it is the expression "article of manufacture" which is believed to give jurisdiction to the Patent Office to grant design patents. To put the matter in another way, if the thing disclosed is not an article of manufacture, then the Patent Office may not properly grant a design patent for such a thing. Where the question is doubtful as to whether the thing is properly classifiable as an article of manufacture, as for instance a statuette, than it would seem that the applicant has the option to obtain either a design patent or a copyright, but not properly both (Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Brenker & Kessler Co., 182 F. R., 150). In the latter case the court held that the applicant was put to an election to determine under which statute he would claim protection.

It would seem quite clear, therefore, that for an applicant to properly obtain a design patent an article of manufacture must be disclosed. In those instances in which the design is inherently inseparable from the thing produced, I am unable to find any case in which this proposition has been questioned. But there are other instances in which the result of the inventive act may be complete before it is affixed to or embodied in any article of manufacture. Such an instance is found in the case of ex parte Fulda, 194 O. G., 549, and involves a discussion of this proposition. The subject matter disclosed in this last mentioned case consisted entirely of surface ornamentation which obviously might be applied indifferently to a large number of different articles, such as flags, buttons, tags, and jewelry. It affirmatively appeared, however, that even in this case the subject matter had been applied to at least one article of manufacture but the applicant had failed to disclose the kind of article. The Commissioner held that the applicant need not disclose the particular kind of article. Subsequently, however, this ruling was reconsidered and seems to have been overruled in the cases of ex parte Cady, 232 O. G., 619, 621.

The writer does not know of any successful attempt to

affirmatively define the expression "article of manufacture" as used in Sec. 4929 R. S., and the attempts to do so negatively do not seem to the writer as very helpful. As commonly understood, however, this expression refers to those movable things which are the subject of barter and sale, and as such closely touch the life of the individual who may make use of them. They constitute part of his environment, and as such react on the individual in a subtle but in a nevertheless important way. This reaction is beneficial where the articles present a pleasing and attractive appearance. If the ultimate object of the statute then is to benefit the individual through his environment, it would seem that this object could be best obtained by a very liberal interpretation of the expression "article of manufacture." In the case of ex

parte Adams, 84 O. G., 311; C. D. 1898, p. 115; and ex parte Steck, 98 O. G., 1228; C. D. 1902, p. 9, it would seem that this expression has not been liberally interpreted. These cases disclose respectively, a truck side frame, and a water tower for the use of fire departments. These structures were held to be machines rather than articles. of manufacture. The ruling was based on the fact that each structure consisted of parts which were capable of having a movement relative to each other. It seems to have been the view that this relative movement prevented the structure as a whole from having a fixed appearance. Nevertheless the particular appearance obtained from an inspection of the drawing was unchangeable, and it is not therefore clear to the writer why a patent could not have been properly granted for a device having this fixed appearance. This seems to have been the opinion of the court in the case of Chandler Adjustable Chair and Desk Co. v. Heywood Bros. and Wakefield Co., 91 F. R., p. 163. In this last mentioned case, ex parte Adams and ex parte Steck were commented on adversely, and the court stated that the construction of the statute found in Adams and Steck, supra, was unwarranted and unreasonable and led to absurd and unjust results. The case of ex parte Klemm and Schreiber, 116 MS. D., p. 403, is a more recent decision of the Office. It discloses a modification of the practice found in ex parte Adams and ex parte Steck, supra, and in the opinion of the writer is in the right direction.