be superimposed and that therefore illustration is unnecessary. He does not seem to have regarded it as so obvious as to warrant him in omitting a description of it, and if it is necessary to describe it it is necessary to show it. Section 4889 of the Revised Statutes provides that when the nature of the case admits of drawings, the applicant shall furnish one copy. This means not merely a drawing, but one showing what is described in the specification if it is capable of illustration. A part of what is described cannot be omitted any more than the whole of it. The statute does not say that a drawing shall be furnished when the invention cannot be understood from description alone. There is good reason for this interpretation of the statute even if it were not plain in its terms. The statutes have in view not merely the particular applicant's rights, but the whole examination system of the Patent Office. The examination of prior patents on the question of novelty in a subsequent application is facilitated by having everything described in those patents shown in the drawings. If the Examiners were compelled to read each patent to see what it discloses, the work of examination would be greatly increased. The petition is denied. EX PARTE BUSENBENZ. ABANDONED APPLICATION-INSUFFICIENT ACTION-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. Where an applicant at the end of a period allowed him by statute files an amendment, but as to many of the claims merely asks for reconsideration, without pointing out how they are supposed to avoid the references cited, Held that he has not taken such action as the condition of the case required and that it is abandoned. On petition. GAS-GENERATING APPARATUS. Messrs. Dyrenforth, Dyrenforth & Lee, for the applicant. ALLEN, Commissioner: This is a petition from the action of the Primary Examiner holding that the above-entitled application is abandoned. It appears from the record that this case originally included twenty-two claims, and on December 27, 1901, the Examiner made his first action in the case. On December 19, 1902, an amendment was presented canceling two claims and asking reconsideration of the others on the ground that “they are specific enough to avoid the references." No explanation whatever was made as to how they were supposed to avoid the references, except as to two claims. On January 6, 1903, the Examiner objected to the title of the invention, criticised the form of five claims which were otherwise pronounced allowable, and rejected fifteen claims upon the prior art. A reply to this action was filed December 28, 1903, in which two claims were canceled, an argument was made as to the title of the invention, and it was said that the criticism of the form of the five claims was not understood. As to the remaining thirteen rejected claims it was said: The remaining claims do not appear to be met by the references. The Examiner did not regard this as such proper action as the condition of the case required and in a letter of January 12, 1904, held it to be abandoned. On January 9, 1995, the applicant asked reconsideration of that ruling. The ruling was repeated, and this petition was filed June 8, 1905. It is to be noted that the applicant waited almost the full statutory period before responding to any action by this Office. It is to be noted, further, that more than four years after this case was filed it contained thirteen claims which had been twice rejected by the Examiner and in regard to which the applicant had made no argument whatever. He had merely asserted twice that the references do not seem to anticipate the claims; but it is very clear that such assertion did not tend to furnish new light for the Examiner. It did not tend to advance the prosecution of the case and was a useless proceeding unless intended to delay the case. Rule 68 requires that the applicant point out how the claims avoid the references, and it is very clear that only by such action can the applicant and the Examiner reach an agreement or intelligently come to an issue. The action of December 28, 1903, was not such as the condition of the case required, and under the provisions of Rule 171 the case became abandoned on January 6, 1904. It is to be noted that this petition was not taken until seventeen months after the applicant was notified that the application was abandoned. This delay would be sufficient to warrant the holding of abandonment, even if it had not become abandoned before. The petition is denied. EX PARTE DAVIN. Decided June 27, 1902. (100 O. G. 452.) I. DRAWING-RULE 50 DEFINED. Where the specification describes the grain of wood as running lengthwise and this feature is included in the claims, the drawing should show the same, since the rules require that the drawing must show every feature of the invention covered by the claims. (Rule 50.) 2. DRAWING-RULE 50 DISTINGUISHED FROM RULE 51. Where the grain of wood is an essential feature of the invention, the requirement that the drawing should show the same is not inconsistent with the requirement of the fourth section of Rule 51, which states that imitations of wood in surface-graining should not be attempted. 3. COMBINATION CLAIM-INTAngible Element Should Not Be Included. An "opening" should not be made a positive or direct element in combination claims, for the reason that an opening is not a tangible thing. It can exist only in connection with some other element. If it is desired to describe this element as provided with an opening, there is no objection to such a course. ON PETITION. BUSHINGS FOR WHEELS AND PULLEYS. Application of Walter W. Davin filed March 25, 1902, No. 99,943. Mr. Wallace A. Bartlett for the applicant. Allen, Commissioner: This is a petition from an action of the Examiner objecting to the drawing and claims of the above-entitled application. The Examiner has required that the drawing be amended to show the grain of the wood running lengthwise. The specification so describes the grain, and this feature is included in the claims. It is therefore an essential feature of the invention that the grain shall run lengthwise. 1352 U. S. PRACTICE.-N. S. WALES.—EXPORTED ARTICLES. The Examiner's requirement was right, since the rules require that— the drawing must show every feature of the invention covered by the claims. (Rule 50.) The statement in the fourth section of Rule 51 that— imitations of wood or surface graining should not be attempted— is in no way inconsistent with the requirement of Rule 50 that every feature covered by the claims be illustrated. Rule 51 does not absolutely prohibit the imitation of wood or surface graining where such imitation is necessary or desirable. The language of the rule is that these imitations should not be attempted, and the reason for this is found in the difficulty experienced by ordinary draftsmen in making such imitations in a satisfactory manner. The Examiner has also required that the "opening” should not be made a positive or direct element in the claims. This requirement also is a proper one. An opening is not a tangible thing. It can exist only in connection with some other element. If it is desired to describe this element as provided with an opening, there is no objection to such a course. An opening, however, should not be included as an element by itself. The petition is denied. New South Wales. Statistics. The Monthly Statistical Bulletin for June, 1905, a government publication, gives some valuable and interesting information. It appears that at the end of 1904 there were 3,632 manufacturing establishments, plants and machinery valued at £7,536,903, say 37 million dollars, employing 68,063 hands, and having an annual output of £27,159,230, say 135 million dollars. There are 3,281 miles of railways open to traffic. The value of the minerals mined was £5,800,979, or say 29 million dollars. Patents for Exported Articles. Practical Advice to Manufacturers. Reprinted from Daily Consular and Trade Reports, Sept. 11, 1905. In Consular and Trade Reports for September 5 an interesting report from Mr. Robert Grimshaw, of Hanover, Germany, was printed on methods employed by manufacturers to introduce typewriting machines in Europe. Consul-General Mason contributes another report from Mr. Grimshaw on the importance of securing patents on articles imported into Germany when such articles are patentable. His letter follows: I have often had occasion to write American manufacturers and exporters on the subject of having what they have to sell in Europe patented in the countries where they wish to sell them, and in some cases what I have to say has taken effect. But I should be glad of an opportunity to say, for the benefit of manufacturers as a class and for that of American export trade as a whole, some of the things that I have said from time to time to individuals. From the point of view of the manufacturer patenting is desirable, because it prevents the foreigner from doing what he has otherwise every legal right to do at any time that he sees that a foreign invention is meeting with success, and possibly success at his expense, in that it is being sold in his territory and supplanting his own products, viz., make and use it. From the point of view of the selling agent in Europe, who is asked to spend time and money doing missionary work, the desirability of patenting the new thing is evident from the first, and the conviction strengthens with the success of the agent in the unprotected territory. For the manufacturer has at least the protection of home patents, and if through leaving himself unprotected he loses his foreign fields, he has at least his own country to work in with no one to say him nay. But the selling agent abroad, who has put in hard work to convince a very conservative public of the superiority of the new thing (a task which is none of the lightest, especially if there is a marked difference in first cost against the novelty) is cut out completely. This digging wells half down to water is seldom relished even by the most philosophic and philanthropic of agents. PENALTIES FOR INFRINGEMENT. But when we consider the question solely from these two standpoints we have still by no means got a full view thereof. There is the customer to consider. He does not want to buy a lawsuit with a machine or other purchase. In case the article to be sold is not patented in the country in which it is offered for sale there is the danger that it has already been patented by another, and that the patentee will very justly bring against the purchaser an action for infringement of his chartered rights. In this danger the resident agent-the missionary—participates. It is useless to assure the customer that the manufacturer is one of the largest concerns in his native country, and will protect the purchaser against any possible suits for infringement. In the first place the customer has no means of verifying the statement about the financial weight of the manufacturer, and in the second he does not care; he does not wish to be annoyed by any suits, no matter how heavily he may be backed up. In the third place, if he knows anything about German patent law, and the case is a German one, he will quictly remind the missionary that in that country the infringement of a patent is not merely a civil but a criminal offense; and no manufacturer in America, however influential in financial circles, can get around that part of the difficulty. Section 36 of the German patent law of April 7, 1891, says: "Whoever knowingly uses an invention contrary to the ordinances in sections 4 and 5 will be punished with a fine of 5,000 marks or with imprisonment not to exceed one year." The quoted sections 4 and 5 are those which secure to the inventor the sole rights of the invention which he patents. CONVEYING FALSE IMPRESSIONS. Further, there are many manufacturers who seek to convey to their agents and to the customers the impression that the matter is patented in the country of sale, not by directly saying so but by implication. Sometimes this implication is only one of silence; but for all that the attempt, whether unlawful or not, is dangerous in most countries, and especially in Germany. For section 40 of the law, already quoted, says distinctly that whoever marks objects or their packages with any sign calculated to impress one falsely with the idea that the object is patented according to the German law shall pay a fine of 1,000 marks. I had been for months in correspondence with the European general agency of an American manufacturer. To get a definite answer, or even any answer at all as to patents, was next to impossible. At last, however, I got the following: "Our friends, the Co., 1354 PATENTS FOR EXPORTED ARTICLES. – BOOKS RECEIVED. apologize for the delay in answering our letters about patents, which they say has occurred through oversight. They write: 'As you may be aware, probably we have a great number of persons applying for patents in our own and foreign countries, and to possess you of definite information concerning them would be rather a difficult matter. It will, however, suffice and be entirely satisfactory to you to say that we will fully protect our customers against damages resulting from any lawsuits brought against them by reason of the use of our devices." " The foregoing is not to be commended. I have not the slightest doubt that I can get from the Remington typewriter people, or from the Westinghouse concerns, or from the McCormick establishments, within fifteen minutes after application to the proper head of department, the number and date of every patent owned or controlled by the concern in question in any country in the world where they are protected. If anyone does not believe it let him try a little bit of infringement, and call at the office of the company in question to discuss the matter in person. Books and Pamphlets Received. New South Wales. Monthly Statistical Bulletin, June, 1905. Compiled in the office of the Government Statistician. Issued by the Intelligence Department. 19 pp. Published by authority of the Government of the State of New South Wales, Sydney. The Commonwealth of Australia.-Comprehensive Index to the Patents Act, 1903, by Fred Walsh. This is a pamphlet of 68 pages. The work appears to be very thoroughly done. Sydney and Melbourne, 1905. PATENT AGENTS AND SOLICITORS, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 305-309 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N. Y. Patents, Trade- Marks, Designs and Copyrights FIRM ESTABLISHED 1879 WE TRANSACT BUSINESS EXCLUSIVELY FOR PATENT SOLICITORS, AND PATENT AGENTS. AGENCIES AND CORRESPONDENTS IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD GRANTING PATENT OFFICES FULLY EQUIPPED TO GIVE THE HIGHEST CLASS OF EXPERT WORK WITH PROMPT |