Ex parte Spielman, C. D., 1891, p. 162; Scott v. Brooks, C. D., 1895, p. 814. Where no new evidence was alleged and it was merely desired to advance the same arguments as before, a rehearing was denied. Scott v. Brooks, C. D., 1895, p. 814. Where newly discovered evidence was alleged, but it appeared that a party had erred in judgment and failed to produce the evidence, a rehearing was denied. Lorraine v. Thurmond, C. D., 1890, p. 140; Greuter v. Mathieu, C. D., 1904, p. 264. A petition to reopen will not be set for hearing but decided on the record, Borton, C. D., 1903, p. 153. Some of these decisions relate to rehearings in contested cases and not to ex parte appeals, but the principles to be observed are the same. Other cases involving petitions for rehearing are Hansen v. Davis, C. D., 1891, p. 72; Ex parte Atwater, C. D., 1897, p. 36; Ex parte Utley, C. D., 1892, p. 38; Clark v. Broad, C. D., 1891, p. 217; Dewey v. Colby, C. D., 1896, p. 13; Northall v. Bernadin, C. D., 1896, p. 15; Ex parte Bartholomew, C. D., 1908, p. 280; Ex parte Naylor, C. D., 1912, p. 40.

"Cases which have been decided by the Examiners-in-Chief will not be reheard by them when no longer pending before them without the written authority of the Commissioner". (Rule 140).

Since the decision in Ex parte Floyd, C. D., 1907, p. 195, cases are considered "pending before" the Examiners-in-Chief for the purpose of entertaining a motion for rehearing (Rule 140) until the expiration of the statutory or specified limit of appeal or until such appeal shall have been taken. To this statement of the decision should probably be added, or until some action is taken by the applicant which amounts to a waiver of the right of appeal or carries into effect the decision from which appeal might be taken (Rule 146). A motion for rehearing does not stay the running of the time set as the limit of appeal; Cole v. Zarboch v. Greene, C. D., 1905, p. 194; Ross v. Loewer, C. D., 1896, p. 665. But if made in time, the rehearing may be granted after the limit of appeal has expired, Naulty v. Cutler, C. D., 1907, p. 8.

There is no appeal from a refusal to grant a rehearing (see cases under Rule 140).

"Cases which have been decided by either the Commissioner or the Examiners-in-Chief, will not b ere-opened by the Primary Examiner without like authority, and then only for the consideration of matters not already adjudicated upon, sufficient cause being shown." (See Rule 68). Rule 140.

The Examiner cannot even admit allowable claims after the decision on appeal unless recommended by the Board or authorized by the Commissioner, Ex parte Hunter, C. D., 1897, p. 161. The Commissioner will not authorize the reopening of a case by the Primary Examiner in the absence of good and sufficient reasons for delay or of a showing of great hardship or irreparable injury. Ex parte Harrison, C. D., 1902, p. 347; Ex parte Goldsmith, C. D., 1892, p. 41. Cases in which the Commissioner refused to reopen the case are: Ex parte Eschner, C. D., 1893, p. 68; Ex parte Osborn, C. D., 1898, p. 15; Ex parte Hardie, C. D., 1899, p. 2; Ex parte Starkey, C. D., 1903, p. 239; Ex parte Bourne, C. D., 1904, p. 247; Merrill, C. D., 1905, p. 193; Ex parte East, C. D., 1905, p. 192; Ex parte Lesler, C. D., 1905, p. 309; Ex parte Marks, C. D., 1905, p. 439; Ex parte Millett & Reed, C. D., 1906, p. 521; Ex parte Milans, C. D., 1908, p. 179; Ex parte Bartholomew, C. D., 1908, p. 280; Ex parte Wagner, C. D., 1909, p. 241; Ex parte Russell, C. D., 1911, p. 63; Ex parte Ellis, C. D., 1911, p. 63; Ex parte Ellis, C. D., 1911, p. 120; Ex parte Wright, C. D., 1913, p. 180. In Gilmer, C. D., 1904, p. 102, the case was reopened.

Reconsideration of Cases Decided by Former
Commissioner.

"Cases which have been decided by one Commissioner will not be reconsidered by his successor except in accordance with the principles which govern new trials." (Rule 147).

Muhlfeld v. O'Connor, C. D., 1915, p. 62; Ex parte Chapman, 19 Gourick 80-23, Nov. 15, 1917; Ex parte Spielman, C. D., 1891, p. 162.

OF GENERAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

The legislative, executive and judicial appropriation bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, made pro

vision for 48 principal examiners and 94 assistant examiners in each of the four grades, an addition of two principals and eight assistants, two in each grade. This allowed for the formation of two new examining divisions. One of these, Division 47, has been organized by and placed in charge of Examiner E. S. Glascock, formerly at the head of Division 46.

The following classes have been transferred to the new division:

Class 188, Brakes,

Class 192, Clutches,

Class 303, Fluid Pressure Brake and Analogous Systems.

Other classes may be added later if this assignment proves too light.

Mr. Clinton L. Wolcott and Mr. Frank W. Dahn have been promoted from the grade of First Assistant to Primary Examiner to fill the newly created positions.

Mr. Wolcott was appointed to the corps July 1, 1905 from the state of Nebraska and reached the grade of First Assistant June 1, 1914; with the exception of a year in Division 9, he has served continuously in Division 39. He has been placed in charge of Division 46 and has taken with him from Division 39, Class 299 with which he was very familiar.

Mr. Dahn was appointed to the corps September 3, 1907, from the state of Minnesota, and was made First Assistant Jan. 1, 1917. His first five years in the Office were spent in Division 12, since which time he has served in Division 21. Mr. Dahn has been detailed as acting law examiner and for the present he will assist Mr. Disney in the disposition of motions to dissolve interferences, and do other special work.

The usual grist of resignations handed in since the last issue of the Journal is regretfully noted here.

Mr. M. E. Anderson, First Assistant Examiner, in Div. 37 has resigned on account of the unsatisfactory condition of his health. It is sincerely hoped his return to

normal will be rapid and that he will be back soon. The Office sadly needs men of his experience and ability.

Mr.-Harry Seidel, Second Assistant Examiner, has associated himself with Mr. Chester H. Braselton and will be located at Toledo, Ohio. Mr. Seidel was appointed Fourth Assistant Examiner August 2, 1915, and reached the grade of Second Assistant Dec. 20, 1919. He served 2 years and 3 months in Div. 35 and since November 12, 1917, has been in Div. 28.

Mr. Willis F. Avery, Second Assistant Examiner, has resigned to go to the South Philadelphia works of the Westinghouse Company where he will be associated in their patent department with Mr. Reavis, who recently left the Office. Mr. Avery has been prominent in the activities of the Patent Office Society and will be missed in this connection. He was one of the main-stay examiners in Div. 18, a division demanding unusual qualifications in its force. Appointed to the corps April 19, 1915, he was made Second Assistant May 21, 1918.

Four temporary fourth assistant examiners have resigned, three to enter positions on the outside.

Mr. Charles M. Funkhouser has accompanied Mr. Avery to the Westinghouse Co. at South Philadelphia. Mr. B. B. Dowell has been recalled to active duty in the Navy on very sudden notice.

Mr. E. W. Stitt enters the employ of the Washington Steel and Ordnance Co., at Giesboro Point, to gain experience in the manufacture of automobile parts.

Mr. Joseph A. Howells has resigned to further pursue his studies at the University of Alabama.

While all these men had been in the Office but a comparatively short time, they were men of promise and the inability to keep them spells much loss of time to the Office in training them so far.

Mr. A. H. Strother of New York has communicated what he calls an amusing discovery. He writes, to find the corresponding "C.D." volume from the "O.G." number in the Gazette, above O. G. number 137, subtract 29

and divide by 12; the quotient is the year and the remainder the month. Thus, 276 O. G. less 29, divided by 12, equals 20 plus 7, which is July, 1920. The rule is subject to one exception; when there is no remainder, the month is December of the preceding year. Thus 269 O. G., less 29, divided by 12, equals 20, which is December, 1919.

PATENT ATTORNEY

engaged in the soliciting of U. S. and foreign patents for the past ten years, desires suitable connection.

Education: Graduate Mechanical Engineer, Member of the Bar. Experience:

Personally conducted preparation and prosecution in English, German and French of patent applications.

Connection with lawyer having general practice, or patent litigation practice preferred; opportunity with manufacturing concern considered.

Address XXX, care Journal of the Patent Office Society.

"A manufacturing corporation desires to secure the services of a capable patent attorney or Assistant Examiner for its patent department. A knowledge of Electrical Engineering is essential. State experience, present employment and compensation desired.

Address G. W., care Journal of the Patent Office Society,