[Decisions of the Examiner of Interferences are indicated by parallel lines (); of the Examiners-in-Chief by a paragraph mark (1); of the State Courts by a section mark (§); of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the letter a; of the United States District Courts by the letter b; of the Court of Appeals of the Dis- trict of Columbia by one star (*); of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by the letter d; and of the Supreme Court of the United States by two stars (**).]
Abandonment of application by winning party without making public, judgment no bar to grant of patent to losing party whose application has not been abandoned. Jolliffe v. Waldo v. Vermeer and Schorik____ Act August 17, 1916, extension of time under, not limited to citizens of for- eign countries. Ex parte Rieder_.
Affidavits under Rule 75, sufficiency of. *In re Grieve___. Anticipation, prior patent not to be admitted as evidence of when later patent covers an invention made before issue of earlier patent. dWm. F. Goessling Box Co. et al. v. Gumb et al__ Appealed case, claiming substantially same invention in terms of appa- ratus as when before the court before in terms of process, former de- cision must be held controlling. *In re Gold--- Appellant junior party, three concurrent decisions of Patent Office tri- bunals against him, case must be clearly established to prevail. *Living- ston v. Thompson___
Applications, patents granted only upon those signed by inventor, if living, Ex parte Kramer___
Signed by attorney accepted under war conditions prior to act of August 17, 1916. Ex parte Kramer___
Assignment, assignee entitled to enforcement of implied covenant of pat- entee to apply for reissue. Northrop et al. v. Draper Co-
Carries with it an implied covenant that assignor will make applica- tion for reissue under certain conditions. dNorthrop et al. v. Draper Co----
Implied covenant of assignor to apply for a reissue, if necessary, not defeated as to subsequent assignees by a covenant personal to first assignee which does not run with the grant. dNorthrop et al. v. Draper Co-----
Bar to patent. Prior knowledge must be of the actual thing, the physical embodiment of the invention, and must be public. Jolliffe v. Waldo v. Vermeer and Schorik___.
Cancelation of patent, second patent for same invention in lieu of one in- correct and canceled adjudged invalid. dWestinghouse Traction Brake Co. v. Christensen et al_--_-
Second patent for same invention not reissue, for it did not conform to section 4916, not correction under Rule 170, for it went beyond a mistake and modified the first patent in a vital point-date of ex- piration as the Commissioner had no warrant in law for his action the patent is adjudged invalid. dWestinghouse Traction Brake Co. v. Christensen et al--------
Civil process, exemption from service of while in attendance upon hearing before judicial tribunals. *Engle v. Manchester and Spooner___.. Claims, applicant pointing out exact invention in claim, may set apart the old parts of the structure in a preamble, Ex parte Jepson____ Effect of introductory phrases. Ex parte Jepson_-_.
New element introduced into claim by amendment to be supported by statutory oath. dKintner et al. v. Atlantic Communication Co. et al--------
Reference in one claim to another claim in same case. Ex parte Brown To be construed in the light of the object to be attained. *Gathmann v. Clarke____
Combination of old elements, invention is looked for in new and useful means afforded or new and useful results obtained. dNeill et al. v. Kinney.
Commercial success persuasive of the presence of invention. Separation, Limited, and Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Lim- ited, v. Hyde____
Commissioner of Patents, as the officer who administers the law, may in the exercise of such function base his opinion upon any pertinent fact capable of proof, which may be verified upon appeal, since the duty of the court is to determine if he has applied correctly the law to the facts in his possession. *In re Bradford Dyeing Association___ Construction of claims-
Anticipation:
*In re Herber_.
Comparison with reference shows nothing patentable. *In re Vree- land
No invention over prior art. *In re Bush__.
New claims containing new matter properly rejected. *In re Manson_
Construction of claims-Continued.
Convenience of operation. Ex parte Kirby----
Weight given to affidavits which show a real need supplied that other inventions have failed to satisfy. *In re Willard..---- Reference to specification for explanation frequently necessary. d North American Chemical Co. v. Keno Supply Co‒‒‒‒ Substitution of equivalents. Ex parte Herber_. Unpatentable because inoperative. *In re Mattullath.
Because of state of the art. *In re Travilla_-_
Construction of patents; patent held void by reason of double patenting. d Conrader et al v. Judson Governor Co----
Rule 107. d Reed v. Cropp Concrete Machinery Co. et al. Rules 109 and 122. Ames, Jr., v. Ryan.----
Rule 170. d Westinghouse Traction Brake Co. v. Christensen et al...- Construction of specifications and patents, part of claims valid and part invalid. **Minerals Separation, Limited, and Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited, v. Hyde‒‒‒‒‒‒
Patent not pioneer invention; in view of state of the art entitled only to restricted construction and a narrow range of equivalents. d Klauder-Weldon Dyeing Mach. Co. v. Giles et al----- Patentee securing a decree from one court on a certain theory can- not in another suit abandon it for one inconsistent therewith; a patent cannot be susceptible of different meanings not consistent with each other. d Kintner et al. v. Atlantic Communication Co. et al_____.
Construction of statutes:
Act August 17, 1916. Ex parte Rieder___ Section 4886, Revised Statutes.
**Motion Picture Patents Company
v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company et al..
Section 4888, Revised Statutes. Ex parte Kramer_ Section 4904, Revised Statutes. **Ewing, Commissioner of Pat- ents, v. The United States, ex rel. The Fowler Car Company. Section 4915, Revised Statutes-
d Barrett Co. et al. v. Ewing, Commissioner of Patents_____ d Gold et al. v. Gold___
Construction of trade-mark statutes, section 5, trade-mark act, Feb- ruary 20, 1905. Ex parte Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co. Section 27, trade-mark, act February 20, 1905-
dFred Gretsch Manufacturing Company v. Schoening and Ma- lone, as Collector. etc____
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia-
Jurisdiction over Patent Office limited to final rejection of applica- tions and final awards of priority of invention. *Carlin v. Gold- berg----
No jurisdiction, to determine question of patentability. *Hathaway and Lea v. Colman..
Credibility of witnesses and conflicting testimony; trial court followed. **Adamson v. Gilliland.
Decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia and of the Patent Office tribunals not to be overturned by the courts unless it is convincingly shown that the evidence furnishes no substantial sup- port for a decree. d Gold et al. v. Gold‒‒‒‒‒‒ Delay in filing application due to state of war; reciprocal privileges as- sumed; German patent not bar to grant of United States patent. Ex parte Habenicht and Becke__.
Delay in prosecution of application; citizen of the United States en- titled to extension of time if delay was caused by "existing and con- tinuing state of war." Ex parte Rieder____
Design applicable to group, shown applied to one of group; patent may cover all. Ex parte Andrews___.
Complete article should be shown in the drawings, but the particular portion in which the invention lies may be indicated in the speci- fication. Ex parte Northwood_-
Limitations by rules of the office not giving all the broad rights of the invention; question of reissue. bAshley et al. v. Samuel C. Ta- tum Co.‒‒‒‒
Patent issued in accordance with rules of the office; held by court that patent covered only design as shown, without ornamentation, and was not infringed by similar design with ornamentation. bAsh- ley et al. v. Samuel C. Tatum Co.----‒‒
Device in remote art, patent neither anticipated nor limited in scope by device or combination designed to perform another function and used under radically different circumstances. dWm. F. Goessling Box Co. et al. v. Gumb et al.______
Diligence, invention of intricate nature, detail of its very essence, care in perfecting does not nullify. *Saurer v. Groebli
Disclaimers; patentee may not disclaim an invention, then claim to secure same in a pending application, as it would extend monopoly. Ex parte Williams___
When filed in interference extend only to the particular claims as to which interference has been declared and judgment following does not affect the question of invention as to other claims. dReed v. Cropp Concrete Machinery Co. et al.---‒‒‒‒‒ Disclosure which states limits within which variations may be made suffi- cient. **Minerals Separation, Limited, and Minerals Separation Ameri- can Syndicate, Limited, v. Hyde___
Division of application, requirement not ruling that claims are patent- able. *In re Isherwood____
Elements, between the old and the new, in which the invention actually resides, the claims should show a clear line of demarcation. Ex parte Jepson__---
Employer and employee. Patentees planned, directed, and largely con- ducted investigation and interpreted results; invention resulting there- from theirs, not that of employee who made the analysis and ob- servations resulting in the immediate discovery. **Minerals Separa- tion, Limited, and Minerals Separation American Syndicate, Limited, v. Hyde___--
Exemption from service of process. Extends to all forms of process of civil character, if attendance is on hearing before judicial tribunal. *Engle v. Manchester and Spooner----
Extension of time for payment of fees, act of August 17, 1916; reciprocal privileges from Germany assumed. Ex parte Habenicht and Becke----
Final fee, payment delayed by reason of Sunday and holiday falling to- gether; application forfeits. Ex parte Hudson__
Foreign application; joint application pending in United States; one ap- plicant caused invention to be patented in Great Britain; joint applica- tion in United States afterwards abandoned; application for patent made by one applicant in this country more than seven months after foreign application barred from patent by section 4887, amended by act of March 3, 1897, then in force. dAmerican Casting Mach. Co. v. Pitts- burgh Coal Washer Co.‒‒‒‒‒
Foreign patent; United States patent void because of foreign patent granted more than seven months prior to application for patent in this country. dAmerican Casting Mach. Co. v. Pittsburgh Coal Washer Co
Grant of patent, rights created by. **Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company et al.-----
Change in form or of some element of combination where same prin- ciple or mode of operation is used does not avoid infringement unless such change is leading characteristic of invention. dWm. F. Goessling Box Co. et al. v. Gumb et al.
Similarity of result not necessarily proof of. Conrader et al. v. Judson Governor Co.-‒‒‒‒.
Similarity of devices. **Adamson v. Gilliland_
Where intervening rights have been acquired suits for infringement cannot be maintained. bAshley et al. v. Samuel C. Tatum Co.---- Injunction, disclosure of trade secrets to witnesses and counsel. **E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Company et al. v. Masland et al.‒‒‒‒‒ Interdependent claims, where three claims are old and the devices there- in are claimed only in combination with devices of a fourth claim, if this claim falls the other claims fall therewith. *In re Minor____ Interference:
Determination of its existence within the discretion of the Com- missioner of Patents. **Ewing, Commissioner of Patents, v. The United States, ex rel. The Fowler Car Company- Effect of dissolution, Campbell v. Dyson v. Dunham_.
Mandamus to compel the Commissioner of Patents to declare. **Ewing, Commissioner of Patents, v. The United States, ex rel. The Fowler Car Company___.
Form of. Ames, Jr., v. Ryan__.
Transmission refused where motions are indefinite. Ames, Jr., v. Ryan-
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |