Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX.

[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 (**).]

A.

Page.

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_.

[blocks in formation]

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___

122

346

155

114

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-

36

336

287

Carries with it an implied covenant that assignor will make applica-
tion for reissue under certain conditions. dNorthrop et al. v.
Draper Co----

287

---

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-----

287

B.

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___.

15

C.

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_-_.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]

New element introduced into claim by amendment to be supported
by statutory oath. dKintner et al. v. Atlantic Communication Co.
et al--------

[blocks in formation]

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.

**Minerals

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_.

279

381

202

182

[blocks in formation]

Comparison with reference shows nothing patentable. *In re Vree-
land

194

[blocks in formation]

No invention over prior art. *In re Bush__.

New claims containing new matter properly rejected. *In re Manson_

173

174

152

Construction of claims-Continued.

Patentability—

*In re Duncan

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----

Construction of-

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-

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

dFred Gretsch Manufacturing Company v. Schoening and Ma-
lone, as Collector. etc____

242

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----

128

No jurisdiction, to determine question of patentability. *Hathaway
and Lea v. Colman..

229

Credibility of witnesses and conflicting testimony; trial court followed.
**Adamson v. Gilliland.

388

D.

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__.

Page.

244

31

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___

[blocks in formation]

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___

321

381

Division of application, requirement not ruling that claims are patent-
able. *In re Isherwood____

226

E.

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___--

62

381

Page.

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----

F.

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

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

G.

Grant of patent, rights created by. **Motion Picture Patents Company v.
Universal Film Manufacturing Company et al.-----

Infringement:

391

I.

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.

346

Similarity of result not necessarily proof of. Conrader et al. v.
Judson Governor Co.-‒‒‒‒.

363

Similarity of devices. **Adamson v. Gilliland_

388

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:

93

426

189

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_.

409

56

Mandamus to compel the Commissioner of Patents to declare.
**Ewing, Commissioner of Patents, v. The United States, ex rel.
The Fowler Car Company___.

409

Motion to amend-

Form of. Ames, Jr., v. Ryan__.

43

Transmission refused where motions are indefinite. Ames, Jr.,
v. Ryan-

[ocr errors][merged small]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »