Since this practice was instituted, and on the 17th day of August, 1916, Congress passed an act, which for convenience is copied in full, as follows: An act to extend temporarily the time for filing applications and fees and taking action in the United States Patent Office in favor of nations granting reciprocal rights to United States citizens. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any applicant for Letters Patent or for the registration of any trade-mark, print, or label, being within the provisions of this act, if unable on account of the existing and continuing state of war to 'file any application or pay any official fee or take any required action within the period now limited by law, shall be granted an extension of nine months beyond the expiration of said period. SEC. 2. That the provisions of this act shall be limited to citizens or subjects of countries which extend substantially similar privileges to the citizens of the United States, and no extension shall be granted under this act to the citizens or subjects of any country while said country is at war with the United States. SEC. 3. That this act shall be operative to relieve from default under existing law occurring since August first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and all applications and Letters Patent and registrations in the filing or prosecution whereof default has occurred for which this act grants relief shall have the same force and effect as if said default had not occurred. Approved August 17, 1916. The Examiner on June 16, 1915, advised the applicant that the claims were allowable, but required formal papers signed by the inventor. This action was repeated on June 3, 1916. On April 16, 1917, the applicant wrote to the Office as follows: Hon. Commissioner of Patents. SIR: The official action of June 3, 1916, is received. As will appear from the affidavit of Alexander F. Macdonald attached, efforts have been made to get the formal papers and assignment executed by the applicant but without success to the present date. As soon as the papers are received from Mr. Kramer and the American consulate they will be filed in the Patent Office as requested. It is requested that action be temporarily suspended herein. Respectfully submitted. (Signed) ALBERT G. DAVIS, The Examiner on April 20, 1917, wrote as follows: This application has been considered in view of applicant's letter to the Office filed Apr. 17, 1917. The proper response to the previous Office action, if it is desired to save the application from abandonment, is a petition to the Commissioner either to be relieved of the requirement of filing formal papers or to have the time extended within which such formal papers may be filed. Petition should be made before June 3, 1917. Or, if the application becomes abandoned, petition may be made to the Commissioner to revive the application, in either case for reasons stated in the affidavit filed Apr. 17, 1917. This petition was then filed, praying— First-To relieve the said Kramer of the requirement to file formal papers herein executed by him, and to formally allow the application and cause a patent to issue upon the payment of the final Government fee, or Second-To relieve the General Electric Company of the requirement to file formal papers herein executed by the said Kramer, and to formally allow the application and cause a patent to issue upon the payment of the final Government fee, or Third-To suspend further action on this case for a reasonable time after peace has been declared to enable the General Electric Company to establish communication with said Kramer and have the formal papers executed and returned, or Fourth-To grant such other relief in the premises as may be deemed wise or expedient to protect the interests of the General Electric Company as owner of the invention and any patent to issue thereon. I think it clear that the application required by section 4888, Revised Statutes, to be filed before a patent can be granted must be executed by the inventor, if living, and therefore the first and second prayers of the petition must be denied. As to the third and fourth prayers, if the application becomes abandoned by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant or his assignee the right remains to revive the application under section 4894, Revised Statutes, upon proper showing. The period of twenty-one months allowed by the act of August 17, 1916, has expired. Whether this act is to be taken as indicating the legislative intent respecting the relief to be granted to foreign applicants, and therefore as an implied disapproval of a practice which would permit the filing of formal applications more than twenty-one months after the filing of a foreign application where an application executed by an attorney has been filed within one year of the filing of the foreign application, has not yet come up for decision and is not presented by this petition. The point is therefore not passed upon. It will be understood, however, that the practice instituted to meet the emergency arising out of the European war was not recommended to the profession and that it would not have been instituted if the act of August 17, 1916, had been passed at an early date. The petition is denied. EX PARTE KIRBY. Decided July 1, 1916. 238 O. G., 1329. PATENTABILITY-HANDLE-CONVENIENCE OF OPERATION. The combination, with the handle of a vacuum-cleaner having an upper curved and hollow end containing the motor-switch, of a rotatable cap upon the end of the handle to control the switch, presents a compact and convenient arrangement by which the movement of the cleaner and the position of the switch can be controlled by one hand and is patentable. [NOTE. This application has resulted in Patent No. 1,195,363.] Appeal from Examiners-in-Chief. HANDLE-SWITCH FOR SUCTION-CLEANERS. Messrs. Hull & Smith for the applicant. WHITEHEAD, Assistant Commissioner: This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner in finally rejecting claims 2 to 8, inclusive, and 12 to 14, inclusive, of which the following will serve as examples: 2. In an electrically operated suction cleaner of the type wherein a casing containing a motor and a suction device is arranged to be pushed along the floor by means of a handle secured thereto, the combination with the handle, of a hollow casing receiving and rigidly connected to the end of said handle, said casing having an integral portion deflected downwardly at an oblique angle, an electrical switch in said casing and operatively connected to said motor, and a rotatable member carried by said deflected portion and arranged with its axis parallel with said deflected portion and operatively connected to said switch. 5. A switch casing for cleaner handles comprising a hollow shell having its end portions disposed at an angle to each other, one of said portions being adapted to receive the end of the handle and the other having a rotatable cap fitted to the end thereof, and switch mechanism in said casing and operatively connected to said cap. 13. In a device of the character described, the combination, with an operating handle, of a switch casing comprising a hollow shell and having one end secured to said handle, switch mechanism in said shell and having a rotatable stud axial with the other end thereof, and a rotatable cap having a cylindrical portion overlapping the end of said shell and having a convex terminal portion forming a rounded continuation of said shell, said cap being operatively connected to said stud and having its portion adjacent to said shell of greater diameter than said shell and exteriorly roughened. The references are: Latta, 391,900, October 30, 1888; Dickerson, 666,956, January 29, 1901; Batcheller, 703,369, July 1, 1902; Perkins, 756,979, April 12, 1904; Hafemeister, 940,311, November 16, 1909; Kirby, design, 44,173, June 10, 1913. The Examiner rejected all of the claims except claim 9; but no appeal was taken from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief affirming the rejection of claims 1 and 11, and claim 10 was allowed by them. The application shows a vacuum-cleaner the upper end of the handle of which is curved and contains a switch for controlling the motor, the end of the curved portion being closed by a rotatable cap operably connected to the switch. It is stated that by this construc tion the switch can be operated by the same hand that is used in moving the cleaner. Claim 1, as to which no appeal was taken, was rejected on the ground that it provides merely for the placing of a switch in one of the two angularly-related portions of the handle. There would clearly be nothing patentable in merely curving the end of the handle of a vacuum-cleaner in order that it may be more readily grasped by the hand of the operator; nor would there be any invention in the mere placing of a switch therein. By placing the rotatable cap upon the end of the handle applicant has made a compact and convenient arrangement by which the movement of the cleaner and the switch can be controlled by one hand. Claims 5, 6, and 7 define this construction; but they seem to be substantially the same. Applicant is entitled to any one of these claims, but not to all three. Claims 2, 3, and 4 do not define the patentable novelty. Claim 2 merely specifies that one member is rotatable, claim 3, which includes a rotatable cap, does not state that it is connected to the switch, and claim 4 specifies merely that the hollow shell is made of two portions of different diameters, the switch being placed in the larger portion. It would appear to be a mere matter of choice whether the two portions of the shell were made of the same diameter or not. Claim 8 does not properly describe applicant's construction for the reasons fully pointed out in the decision of the Examiners-inChief. Claims 12 and 13 are regarded as allowable. Claim 14 is not patentable over Dickerson. The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is affirmed as to claims 2, 3, 4, 8, and 14 and reversed as to the remaining claims, subject to the holding that the applicant is entitled to only one of the claims, 5, 6, and 7. EX PARTE HUSTED. Decided July 25, 1916. 238 O. G., 1330. INVENTION-NEW RESULT-COMMUNION-TRAY. A communion-tray having a series of small openings to receive full cups and hold them in an elevated position, each opening closely contiguous to a larger opening by which the empty cup may be held in a lower position, Held to present patentable invention over a reference showing a large group of small openings surrounded by a single ring of larger perforations, where it appears that the novel arrangement not only accomplishes the desired end in a manner not contemplated in the reference, but accomplishes additional results. [NOTE. This application has resulted in Patent No. 1,199,987.] ON APPEAL from Examiner-in-Chief. COMMUNION-TRAY. Mr. Richard B. Owen for the applicant. CLAY, Assistant Commissioner: Applicant appeals from the action of the Board of Examiners-inChief in sustaining the Primary Examiner's rejection of applicant's claim for a patent upon certain improvements in communion-trays, defined by the applicant in his appealed claim as follows: A tray having a plurality of openings formed therein, certain of said openings being larger in diameter than the remaining openings, the smaller of said openings arranged between the larger of said openings, the smaller of said openings adapted to receive filled receptacles, the other of said openings adapted to receive the receptacle when emptied, the receptacle when supportd by the smaller of said openings being elevated above the plane of the receptacles supported by the larger of said openings whereby receptacles in the smaller of said openings will be so positioned that access can be had thereto by means of their spaced apart relation and their elevation above receptacles in the larger of said openings. The ground of rejection is that applicant's structure is an obvious modification of the structure shown in the reference patent to Thomas, No. 1,061,026, of May 6, 1913, for a communion-service tray, and does not amount to invention. Applicant's invention is in the structure of a tray for holding the individual conical cups or glasses employed in church communion service. Its essence seems to be the arrangement of apertures in the top of the tray for holding these cups in a particular manner for several particular purposes-namely, that the filled cups will stand in elevated and separated position, ready of access, that each cup stands closely contiguous to a larger opening which is obviously to receive the cup after it has been used and to hold it in such position that it is not liable to be again used. The perforations are shown arranged in continuous series with alternate large and small openings. The reference patent to Thomas presents incidentally a tray-top perforated to hold the cups, having a large group of thirty-four small perforations surrounded by a single ring of seventeen perforations of larger size intended to receive empty glasses that are handed back by the communicants. The view of the Primary Examiner, apparently adopted by the Board, though expressed at some length in his statement, does not seem to attach sufficient importance to the real functions of appli'cant's improvement. This is partly because applicant's own statement of the functions performed by his device was not full or accurate. |