be signed and witnessed, blank sheets, upon which specifications are afterwards to be written by the agent, and to which the previously prepared petition and oath of the applicant are to be attached, is not yet abandoned by attorneys practicing before this office. It is scarcely necessary to say, that the inventor or applicant who would sign and swear to a piece of blank paper, upon which some one else is, without his supervision, to write a description of an invention, is guilty of an act of moral perjury; and that the attorney or agent who knowingly presents papers so prepared to the Patent Office is guilty of a fraud on the office and the Government. I know of few offenses that may more properly be characterized as 'gross misconduct.' No power of attorney can justify any man in presenting to a public officer a paper purporting to be signed and sworn to by a man who never saw it, and who, at the moment it is presented in his name, is absolutely ignorant of its contents." (Commissioners' Decisions, 1869, p. 88.) In the case of De la Marv. Surens et al. the Commissioner says: "It appears that in December, 1865, they applied to solicitors to make application for letters patent. Blank papers were presented, which they signed and made oath to in blank. Subsequently, in fact not until nearly two years afterwards, these blanks were filled by the preparation of the specification which forms the subject of this application. I have already had occasion to call attention to this practice as mischievous and immoral. It is to be hoped that honorable men will frown upon it and avoid it. "If the application had remained in this condition after the disclosure of these facts, I should have refused a patent upon it. But the applicants have filed a substitute specification, properly signed and sworn to. The law requires this to be done before the issue of the patent. It does not declare the application to be a nullity until the oath is furnished. On the contrary, it has been decided that, if the patent issue without any oath, it is not void. (Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 433; Crompton v. Belknap Mills, 3 Fish., 536.) "While such decisions do not authorize the Commissioner to dispense with the proper formalities, they clearly show that the defects may be cured at any time, and that the whole subject of amendment of applications is within his discretion." (Commissioner's Decisions, 1869, p. 94.) 137. OATH NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.-The taking of the oath in due form in an application for a patent is not a condition precedent to the validity of the patent; it is but a pre-requisite to the granting thereof. The statute is directory to the officer superintending the issue of letters patent, and in no degree essential to its validity. (Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall., 433; Dyer v. Rich., 1 Metcalf, 191.) In the case of Crompton v. Belknap Mills the court say: "The respondent finds among the papers on file in the case at the Patent Office a blank form of oath, with the jurat not signed by any magistrate; and hence he argues the oath was not taken. But the oath may have been taken for all that; and this negative testimony cannot overcome the direct recital of the letters patent that the oath was taken, or the presumption that the requirements of the law were complied with in issuing the patent. "But, suppose it were so; suppose the oath was not taken; would the patent be void on that account? It was held otherwise by Justice Story in the case of Whit temore v. Cutter, (1 Gall., 429.) The taking of the oath, though to be done prior to the granting of the patent, is not a condition precedent, failing which, the patent must fail. It is the evidence required to be furnished to the Patent Office, that the applicant really believes he is the original and first inventor of the art, &c. If he take this oath, and it turns out that he was not the first inventor or discoverer, his patent must fail and is void. So, if he do not take it, and still he is the first inventor or discoverer, the patent will be supported. It is prima facie evidence of the novelty and originality of the invention until the contrary appear. (Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 60.) "So the act says, on payment of the duty, that is, fees, the Commissioner shall make an examination, and, if the invention shall be found useful and important, shall issue a patent. Suppose the fees should not be required or paid; would the patent therefore be void? Yet the one requirement appears to be as much a condition precedent as the other; both directory, not to be dispensed with, but neither involving the validity of the patent when granted." (3 Fish., 536.) 138. OATH EXTENDS TO ALL IN SPECIFICATION.-The oath of inventor accompanying his application for a patent is to be considered as extending to all described in his specification, no less than the title of his invention. (Hogg v. Emerson, 6 How., 482; King v. Gedney, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1856.) 139. FALSE SUGGESTION.-M, an alien, made oath that he was a citizen of the United States, and obtained a patent. Eight years afterward he surrendered his pat ent, made oath that he was a citizen of France, paid the balance of the fee due the Patent Office, and obtained a reissue, which recited (among other things) that said original letters patent were "granted to him upon his belief that he was a citizen of the United States, which belief arose from an ignorance of the laws of the United States:" Held, That the original and reissued patents were both invalid: the first because of the false suggestion; the second from want of power in the Commissioner to grant it. (Child v. Adams, 1 Fish., 189.) 140. OATH PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NOVELTY.-When the patent has issued, supported by the oath of the patentee, the burden of proof is cast upon the party who would object, to show that the grant has been improperly obtained by the patentee; because the law presumes, in the first instance, that the patent has been granted upon the proof which the statute requires to be laid before the officers of the Government, and that those proofs were satisfactory. (Curtis on Patents, § 472; Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimson, 14 Peters, 458.) The oath forming a part of the letters patent forms a legal ground for the presumption of the novelty and originality of the patentee's claim until the contrary is proved. (Parker v. Stiles, 5 McLean, 60.) And a patent issued, grounded on the oath of the patentee, is prima facie evidence in an action of infringement. (Fultz ex parte, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1853.) 141. FORM OF OATH BY A SOLE INVENTOR. Byron Rogers, the above-named petitioner, being duly sworn, (or affirmed,) deposes and says, that he verily believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the improvement in seed drills described in the foregoing specification; that he does not know and does not believe that the same was ever before known or used; and that he is a citizen of the United If the applicant be an alien, the sentence "and that he is a citizen of the United States" will be omitted, and in lieu thereof will be substituted "and that he is a citizen of the republic of Mexico," or "and that he is a subject of the King of Italy," or "of the Queen of Great Britain;" or as the case may be. If the applicants claim to be joint inventors, the oath will read "that they verily believe themselves to be the original, first, and joint inventors," &c. SEC. VIII. Classification of Subjects of Invention. SEC. 142. Classification and distribution. 160. Illumination. 143. Agriculture. 144. Agricultural products, prepara tion of. 145. Builders' hardware. 146. Calorifics. 147. Carriages. 148. Chemical processes. 149. Civil engineering. 150. Clay manufactures. 151. Compositions. 152. Felting and hat making. 153. Fine arts. 154. Fire-arms. 155. Glass manufacture. 156. Grinding mills. 157. Harvesters. 158. Household furniture. 159. Hydraulics and Pneumatics. 161. Leather manufactures. 164. Metal working. 165. Navigation. 167. Philosophical instruments. 169. Printing and stationery. 172. Sports, games, and toys. 174. Stone working. 175. Surgical apparatus. 176. Textile manufactures. 177. Wearing apparel. 178. Wood working. |