Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

the date of the filing of the original application, and the date of the notification of allowance, and praying that the original specification, oath, drawings, and model be used as a part of the renewed application.

203. WHEN AN INTERFERENCE WILL BE DECLARED.-Upon considering the renewed application, if it be found that applications have been made, or unexpired patents have been granted, in which the device in controversy has been described or claimed, an interference will be declared between such applications or patents and such renewed application, in order that an opportunity may be given for the production of proof of abandonment or two years' public use, if either exist. (Patent Office Rules,

July, 1870.)

204. FORM OF PETITION FOR THE RENEWAL OF AN APPLICATION.

To the Commissioner of Patents:

Your petitioner represents that on May 8, 1868, he filed an application for letters patent for an improvement in churns, which application was allowed July 7, 1868, but that he failed to make payment of the final fee. He now makes renewed application for letters patent for said invention, and prays that the original specification, oath, drawings, and model may be used as a part of this application. SIMON SLOTHFUL.

XI. Renewal of Withdrawn and Rejected Applications filed prior to July 8, 1870.

SEC.

205. Consequences of neglect to renew application.

206. New application, formal renewal.

SEC.

207. Applications in interference. 208. Intent of the act.

209. Petition to be accompanied by a demand for action.

205. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGLECT TO RENEW APPLICATION. When an application for a patent has been rejected or

withdrawn prior to the passage of the act of July 8, 1870, the applicant shall have six months from the date of such passage to renew his application or to file a new one; and if he omit to do either, his application shall be held to have been abandoned. Upon the hearing of such renewed applications abandonment shall be considered as a question of fact. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 35.)

206. NEW APPLICATION, FORMAL RENEWAL.-The proper course will be, where the application has been withdrawn, to file a new application; and where it has been rejected but not withdrawn, to file a formal renewal, with or without amendment, as the status of the application with reference to previous action may require. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.)

[ocr errors]

207. WHEN RENEWED APPLICATIONS WILL BE PLACED IN INTERFERENCE. Upon considering such renewed applications of either class, if it be found that applications have been made or unexpired patents have been granted in which the device in controversy has been described or claimed, an interference will be declared between such applications or patents and such renewed application, in order that an opportunity may be given for the production of proof of abandonment or two years' public use, if either exist. (Ib.)

208. INTENT OF THE ACT.-In the case of Millspaugh ex parte the Commissioner says: "In this case the attorneys for applicant file the following paper:

"In the matter of," &c., "filed September 20, 1869, and rejected by the board of examiners June 25, 1870, we beg leave to renew the same, in accordance with act of Congress relating to patents approved July 8, 1870, and to retain model, drawing, and papers heretofore filed, to

constitute the renewed application. The case is respectfully submitted to the board of appeal for their further action."

This paper is similar to a large number filed by various attorneys, except that the last paragraph is usually omitted. Some seem to suppose that the effect of such a request is to begin the case de novo, while others imagine that by filing such a paper they "keep the case alive" for two years, during which time they may or may not take or request further action. Both opinions are errors. The act of July 8, 1870, § 35, was intended for no such purposes. The sole intent of the second proviso of that section is, 1. To permit withdrawn cases to be refiled, in which case, of course, they begin de novo; and, 2. To permit rejected cases to be renewed, that is, to be revived and continued under the new law. (Commissioners' Decisions, September 21, 1870.)

209. PETITION TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A DEMAND FOR ACTION.-"The prayer for renewal is a prayer for further action, and the effect of it is simply to demand such action as shall set the case in motion. Section 32 provides 'that all applications for patents shall be completed and prepared for examination within two years after the filing of the petition, and in default thereof, or upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the same within two years after any action therein, of which notice shall have been given to the applicant, they shall be regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto,' &c. It will be observed that the two years run, not from action by the applicant, but action. 'of which notice shall have been given to the applicant,' i. e., action by the office.

"The petition for renewal is but a part of the action nec

essary on behalf of the applicant to revive his case. To complete that action and make it effectual his petition must be accompanied with a specific demand for such proposed action as the status of the case may require. Thus, if the case has been but once rejected, the petition for renewal must be accompanied by a demand for a second examination, or by an amendment. If it has been twice rejected, the petition will accompany the appeal or the prayer to the Commissioner for further leave to amend. If it has been rejected by the board, the petition must be filed with the appeal to the Commissioner. If it has been rejected by the Commissioner, there can be no renewal, unless an appeal to the supreme court of the District of Columbia has been taken.

"Petitions for renewal do not differ, in this respect, from the petition for an original or reissued patent, or for the renewal of an application upon which the final fee has not been made for an extension or for an appeal. In all of these cases action is proposed or requested, which it is expected the office will proceed to make with reasonable diligence.

"I hold, therefore, that the filing of a naked petition for the removal of a rejected application does not of itself renew the case; and that if such petition is not accompanied or followed up by a demand for the action appropriate to the next stage beyond that at which the renewal. finds it, the case will, after January 8, 1871, be treated as abandoned." (Ib.)

SEC.

XII. Appeal to Examiners-in-Chief.

210. Duties of examiners-in-chief.

211. Résumé of the laws constituting the board.

212. Examiners to be governed by

decisions of the Commissioner. 213. When applicant may appeal. 214. Judicial and executive acts. 215. Adverse decisions only revised.

SEC.

218. Case may be remanded for further examination.

219. Delegated discretion.

220. Commissioner may withhold patent after favorable decis

ion.

221. Petition to set forth reasons of appeal.

216. No rehearing allowed except 222. Form of appeal from exam

upon order of Commissioner.

217. Primary examiner cannot reconsider without Commissioner's order.

iner.

223. Form of appeal from examiner in charge of interfer

ences.

210. DUTIES OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.-The examinersin-chief shall be persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability, whose duty it shall be, on the written petition of the appellant, to revise and determine upon the validity of the adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents, and for reissues of patents, and in interference cases; and, when required by the Commissioner, they shall hear and report upon claims for extensions, and perform such other like duties as he may assign them. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 10.)

211. RÉSUMÉ OF THE LAWS CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.-Examiners are first named in the act of 1836, in which provision is made for the appointment of one who is called "an examining clerk." Their duties are nowhere mentioned in the law, except as they may be supposed to be alluded to in the seventh section of the same act, where it is said that "the Commissioner shall make, or cause to be made, an examina

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »