Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

appeal is to the Commissioner." (Krake ex parte, Commissioners' Decisions, 1869, p. 100.)

Thus, in the case of Collins ex parte, the Commissioner says:

"This is an appeal from the primary examiner. Applicant claims an 'improvement in screens or beds for receiving and securing the spawn of fish, in the art of pisciculture, whereby the process is greatly simplified and the labor diminished, and it consists in the use of a revolving screen, arranged and operating as described.'

"He describes the apparatus in detail. It consists of a box placed in the race-way of a fish-pond, provided with an upper screen of wire-cloth covered with gravel, on which the fish lay their spawn. Below this is a second screen of finer material, forming an endless apron, which receives the spawn from the upper screen and conveys it to a box below, where it is secured for use.

"This is all very plain and intelligible. The apparatus is well described by reference to the drawings and by wellchosen terms, and no one could have the slightest difficulty in constructing it and putting it in position for operation.

"The examiner, however, declines to examine the case upon its merits, but requires the applicant 'to be more specific in his description as to the manner of the deposition of the spawn, and how it passes through the gravelbed, and what is its condition when it enters the chamber below, where and how the water enters the tank, when and where impregnation takes place, and where the embryo is developed.

"The examiner misconceives the nature of the invention. It is not an improvement in the process of pisci

culture, but in spawning-screens. It is a mechanical device, performing mechanical functions. It is a mere instrument, to be employed by those skilled in the art, and its nature and functions are described in terms addressed to them. It cannot be necessary to accompany such description with a treatise on fish culture; and if the applicant had embodied such a dissertation in his specification, he would be justly obnoxious to the charge of unnecessary prolixity,' which is condemned in terms by the statute.

"The decision of the examiner is reversed, and the case will be examined on its merits." (Ib., June 8, 1870.) And in the case of Blanchard ex parte the Commissioner says:

"This is an appeal from the decision of the primary examiner.

"The applicant claims, 'as an improved article of manufacture, a mold-board for ridging plows, having the concavity G, for turning a furrow, a circular recess, g', and an adjustable circular plate, H, attached thereto, all as and for the purpose described.'

"This claim was rejected by the examiner, because the claim was for an 'article of manufacture,' while the invention was, according to the description, only 'a portion of a machine.'

"The applicant seems to suppose the examiner to have denied that a part of a machine was patentable. If this were so, it would unquestionably be an error. But the examiner means to affirm no more than that a fraction of a machine cannot be claimed as an article of manufacture.'

"By the true construction of the word 'manufacture,'

as used in the patent act, it fairly covers only such manufactured articles or products as are complete in themselves, or, if parts of a whole, are so far complete as to be the subject of separate manufacture and sale. Thus a lamp chimney is intended to be used with a lamp and not otherwise, nevertheless it may properly be made, sold, and patented as a new manufacture.

"In this case applicant admits that 'this mold-board is adapted and applicable only to this single kind of plow. It is, in other words, a mere fraction of a machine. If a material part, it may be claimed as such, but it is not in any proper sense an article of manufacture.

"The decision of the primary examiner is affirmed.” (Ib., June 13, 1870.)

233. FORM OF APPEAL FROM THE EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF TO THE COMMISSIONER.

To the Commissioner of Patents.

SIE: We hereby appeal to the Commissioner in person from the decision of the examiners-in-chief in the matter of our application for the reissue of letters patent for an improvement in cotton presses granted to Anthony Bowen, May 18, 1865. The following are assigned for reasons of appeal: [Here follow reasons.] WILLIAM MARTIN. CLAUDIUS JENKINS.

XIV. Appeal to the Supreme Court of the District of

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

234. APPEAL TO THE COURT SITTING IN BANC.-If a party, except a party to an interference, is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, he may appeal to the supreme court of the District of Columbia sitting in banc. (Act of July 8, 1870, § 48.)

235. APPELLANT TO NOTIFY COMMISSIONER.-When an appeal is taken to the supreme court of the District of Columbia, the appellant shall give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and file in the Patent Office, within such time as the Commissioner shall appoint, his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth in writing. (Ib., § 49.)

236. PAPERS ACCOMPANYING NOTICE.-The mode of appeal from the decision of the office to the supreme court of the District of Columbia is by giving written notice thereof to the Commissioner; said notice being accompanied by the petition, addressed to the supreme court of the District of Columbia, by the reasons of appeal, and by a certified copy of all the original papers and evidence in the case. (Patent Office Rules, July, 1870.)

237. TIME OF FILING REASONS OF APPEAL.-The reasons of appeal must be filed within thirty days after notice of the decision appealed from. (Ib.)

The filing of the "reasons of appeal" is essentially the appeal itself. (Greenough v. Clark, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1853.) And where the reasons of appeal are not filed within the time prescribed by the Commissioner of Patents, the right of appeal is lost. (Ib.) For an appeal cannot be made after the time limited in the notice of appeal. (Linton ex parte, ib., § 1850.) The Commissioner may, however, enlarge the time to file such reasons. (Greenough v. Clark, ib., 1853.) He may extend the time. of appeal; it is a matter within his discretion. (Justice v. Jones, ib., 1859.)

238. REASONS OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE VAGUE AND UNSATISFACTORY.-The reasons of appeal should be so expressed that the court may gather from their language what is meant by them, but they need not be according to any technical formula. (Laidly v. James, MS. Appeal Cases, D. C., 1860.) They should not be vague and unsatisfactory, but should involve some point affecting the decision of the Commissioner. (Winslow ex parte, ib., 1850.) And no assignment is sufficiently specific which does not with reasonable certainty point out the precise matter of alleged error. (Douglass v. Blackington, ib., 1859.) Thus, the following alleged reasons of appeal have been held to be insufficient: "That the decision of the Commissioner was inconsistent, as opposed to precedents which have governed before;" (Winslow ex parte, ib., 1850;) "that the decision of the Commissioner was in opposition to a clear apprehension of the merits of the case," (ib.;) or, "is against evidence or the weight

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »