Thomas. Ex parte, C. D., 1900, 116; 92 0. G., 1035 Ill
Thomas v. Weintraub, C. D., 1912, 55;.175 0. G., 1097 457
♦Thomson. Inre,26App.D.C.,419..'. 478
♦Thomson V. Weston, 19 App. D. C, 373 134,151,177,179,563
cThomson-Houston Co. v, Kelsey Co., 72 Fed. Rep., 1016 576, 591, 592
rf Thomson-Houston Co. v. Ohio Brass Works, 80 Fed. Rep., 721 592
jTomah Bank s. Warren, 94 Wis., 151 534
♦♦Topliffv.Topliff,145U.S., 156 147,267
Towerv. Yoet,88MS.Dec., 294 53
♦Townsend t>. Thullen, 32 App. D. C, 575 47
♦♦Trade-Mark cases, 100 U. S., 82 109
cTubular Rivet Co. v. O'Brien, 93 Fed. Rep.. 200 595
Tucker. Ex parte, C. D., 1901, 140; 97 O. G., 187 337
Digitized by
Google
INDEX OF OASES CITED. XXIH
Page.
Tucker V. Davis, C. D., 1872, 188; 2 O. G., 224 185
TutUe. Ex parte, C. D., 1904, 537; 113 O. G., 1967 81,142
Tyler r. Arnold, C. D., 1898, 172; 84 O. G., 1684 368
♦Underwood Typewriter Co. v. A. B. Dick Co., 36 App. D. C, 175 86, 251, 253
c Union Hardware Company v. Selchow, 112 Fed. Rep., 1006 276
**United States v. American Tobacco Company. American Tobacco Com-
pany v. United States, 221 U. S., 106 663
**United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Company, 156 U. S., 552 621, 626, 627, 637
♦♦United States «. Freight Aaso., 166 U. S., 290 663
♦♦UnitedStatesv. New York Indians, 173 U.S., 464 632
♦♦United States «. Pldmer, 128 U. S., 62 637
♦nJnitedStatest;. Russell, 13 Wall., 623 639
eUnited States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. Rep., 172 652
cUnited States Whip Co. v. Haasler, 134 Fed. Rep., 398 404
d Universal Adding Machine t;. Comptograph Co., 146 Fed. Rep., 981 135, 179
Van Ausdal. Ex parte, C. D., 1900,74; 91 O. G., 1617 368
rf Victor Talking Machine v. The Fair, 123 Fed. Rep., 4M 595
Viniello. Ex parte, C. D., 1909, 111; 144 O. G., 276 82,85
♦♦Wadev. Lawder,165U. S., 627.. 617,619
Wagner. Ex parte, 0. D., 1905, 406; 118 O. G., 1684 408
Walkerv. Lederer, C. D., 1912, 177; 179 0. G., 851 561
Wallace v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas., 79 592
Walsh v. Hallbauer, C. D., 1901,9; 94 0. G., 223 97
♦Walter Baker & Co., Limited, v. Harrison, 32 App. D. C, 272 30,
35,263,360,441,560
Ward v. Midgley, C. D., 1911, 229; 173 O. G., 584 442,443
♦Warner v. Smith, 13 App. D. C, 111 128, 131, 132, 151, 176, 563, 504
♦♦Wanen t;. Keep, 155 U. S., 265 650
♦Wayne County Preserving Co. v, Burt Olney Canning Co., 32 App. D. C, 279. . 204,
224,433
Wayne Poultry Tonic Company, The, C. D., 1911, 37; 164 O. G., 251 55
Weintiaub v. Hewitt, C. D., 1906, 401; 124 0. G., 2534 60
Weintiaubi;. Hewitt and Rogers, CD., 1907, 49; 126 0. G., 2589 248
♦Weintiaub v. Hewitt and Rogers, 38 App. D. C, 82 459
Welsbach. Ex parte, C. D., 1912, 154; 178 O. G., 1152 505
Wenzelmann and Overholt. Ex parte, C. D., 1912, 218; 180 O. G., 1394 535
♦♦Western Electric Compan y v . LaRue, 139 U. S . , 601 631
♦♦Weetmghouse V. Boyden, 170 U. S., 537 434,436,437
e Westinghouse Electric A M|g. Co. v, Saianac Lake Electric Light Co., 108 Fed.
Rep., 221 94
e Westinghouse Electric & M%. Co. v. Unimi Carbide Co. Thomson-Houston
Electric Co. V, Same, 112 Fed . Rep. , 417 642, 643
cf Westinghouse Electric & Mig, Co. v. Union Carbide Co. Thomson-Houston
Electric Co. v. Same, 117 Fed. Rep., 495 643,644
c Westinghouse Electric A Uig. Co. v. Wagner M%. Co., 129 Fed. Rep., 604 643
Digitized by
Google
XXIV IKDBX OF 0A8B8 CITED.
Fftffe*
(fWestinghoiise Electric A Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Electric & Mfg. Co., 173 Fed.
Rep., 361 646
cTWestmoreland Specialty Co. et al. v. Hogan, 167 Fed. Rep., 327 379
Wetmore and Niemann V. Putnam, C. D., 1912, 190; 180O.G., 321 537
Whipple v. Sharp, C. D., 1901, 133; 96 0. G., 2229 362
♦White. In re, 31 App. D. C, 607 434,435
White v. Allep, Fed. Cas. No. 17, 535 135
**Whiter. Dunbar, 119 U. S., 47 267
♦♦White v. Rankin, 144 U. S., 628 :... 580
Whiteley. Ex parte, C. D., 1869, 70 77
Whitneyv. Brewer, CD., 1912, 127; 177 O. G., 1296 474
♦Wickers and Furlong v. McKee, 29 App. D. C, 4 47,48
cWilderv. Kent, 15Fed.Rep.,217 586
Wilier. Ex parte, C. D., 1900, 62; 91 O. G., 1033 11,12
William Lea & Sons Company, The, v, "H. C. Cole & Company, C. D., 1908,
168; 135 0. G., 893 386
Williams V. Barnes and Thorschmidt, C. D., 1912, 168; 179 0. G., 573 550
Willson. Ex parte, C. D., 1892, 111; 59 0. G., 1257 197
♦♦Wilson t;. Rosseau, 4 How., 0*6 584
♦♦Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How., 99 579,607,608,612,614,620
c Wilson v. Sherman, 1 Blatchf. 536 695
♦♦Winans v, Denmead, 15 How., 330 631
♦Winchester Repeating Arms Company v. The Peters Cartridge Company, 30
App. D. C, 505 226
Windhorst A Co. Ex parte, C. D., 1911,33; 164 O. G., 249 25
♦♦WoUensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S., 96 147,267
♦♦WoodenPipeCase, 185.U. S., 282 579,580,609,610
♦Woods V. Poor, 29 App. D. C, 397 543
Woodsv. WaddeU, C. D., 1903, 391; 106 O. G., 2017 97
♦Worcester Brewing Corporation v. Renter & Company, 30 App. D. C.,4'28 490,
618,545
Wynne. Ex parte, C. D., 1912, 84; 176 0. G., 1070 160
Y.
Yamalli;. Pope, C. D., 1905, 140; 115 O. G., 2136 307
Yonkers Brewery v. Her and Burgweger, C. D., 1909, 93; 143 O. G., 258 244
Z.
Zimmeimann v. Zamboni, C. D., 1906, 139; 121 0. G., 232 j 60
Digitized by
Google
SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX.
(Dwklons Of the 8iq»i«iiieCoart Of tlM District Of Columbia are Mdte United Statet
District Courts by tbe letter (6); United States Cirealt Courts by theletter (c); Court of Appeals of tbe
District of Colombia by one star (*); United States Cinmit Court of Appeals by tbe letter id); and tbe
Sopreme Court of tbe United States by two stars (**>w)
A.
Abandoned experimentB: Page.
Whitney ti. Brewer 127
Abandonment of applications:
Ex parte WilMm 87
Ex parte Wynne 84
Action only partially responBive will not save from. Ex parte Bach 33
Amendment mailed within the statutory period but not received will not
save from. Ex parte Amigo 21
Delay in prosecution of application—
Ex parte Jones I 206
Ex parte Stioh 208
Drvisional application. ExparteStroh 208
End of period of action falling on Sunday. Ex parte Miller 265
Formal requirements, correction of specifications and drawings. Ex parte
Thompecm and Ross 363
Holding of, by examiner reviewable on petition. Ex parte Mygatt 354
Insufficiency of applicants action to save from. Ex parte Patterson 142
Limit of time. Ex parte Miller 265
Partial compliance with requirements of examiner will not save from. Ex
parte Thompson and Roes 363
Process and api>aratus. Ex parte Henri , Helbronner, and Reckl inghausen . 204
Reference, date of pat^it subsequent to applicant's filing date. Ex parte
Demmler 375
Responsive action by the applicant —
Ex parte Bach 33
Ex parte Brenzinger 249
Ex parte Mygatt 81
Ex parte Patterson ^. . . 142
Ex parte Thompson and Roes 363
Ex parte Turner 159
Review of the action of the Commissioner of Patents by Court of Appcab of
District of Columbia. *In re Matullath 490
Revival that a second application may have benefit of original date. Ex
parte Girardelli 239
Unavoidable delay in prosecution of application— p
Ex parte Girardelli 239
Ex parte O'Brien 240
Action by the examiner:
Appeal from. Greene v. Covert * 236
Grounds of rejection. Ex parte Jennings 153
XXV
Digitized by
Google
XX7I SUBJBCT-MATTEB INDEX.
Affidavits: Paca
Insufficiency of. Ex parte Wynne 84
Under Rule 75, foreign application establishing date and identity of. Ex
parte Barthels 171
Under Rule 75, sufficiency of, to overcome reference. Ex parte Hamby. 254
AUegations:
As to right to make claims or that claims have different meaning not basis
for decision on priority. Weisv. Mack 400
Amendments:
Applications in interference, condition of entry. Gross v. Rusby 348
Claims differing from tfiose rejected properly refused admission. Ex parte
Hartford 345
Compliance with decision of Commissioner in copending application. Ex
parte Mygatt 81
New matter not ground for refusal to enter. Ex parte Myers 356
Under Rule 78, claims broader in scope than those allowed not admitted.
Ex parte Goldsmith and Whiting 350
Appeal to the Examinen-in-Chief :
Ex parte Stickney 408
Cancelation of claims. Ex parte Weaver 80
Division of applications. Ex parte Pope 141
Applications:
Amendment to drawings. Slingluff v. Boliu 257
Disclosure of invention. *Bolin v. Slingluff 570
Disclosure of invention to be made by applicant, not by examiner. Ex
parte Thompson 297
Filed by two parties not division of one filed by these two parties and an-
other. Ex parte Hertzbeig and Wohl 302
Informal, request by attorneys that examiner instruct as to requisite
changes. Ex parte Thompson 297
Prosecution of, as defined by the statute. Ex parte La Jeunesse 398
Assignments:
Conflicting, not to be settled by the Patent Office. Ex parte Partridge. . . 299
Function of recording ministerial. Ex parte Palter 95
General, of all inventions past and future, right to inspect any specific ap-
plication not carried by. In re Aerial Telephone and Power Company. 24
Jurisdiction of the Patent Office to adjudicate validity of. Ex parte Palter . 95
Patent issued to applicant. In re Jacobson 285
Return of papers to party filing. Ex parte Palter 95
Suits to compel, jurisdiction of State courts in. **New Marshall Engine
Company et al. v. Marshall Engine Company 617
Transfer of interest in company not yet formed for promotion of invention
not recordable. In re Farrand 227
B.
Bankruptcy:
Fending application sold by trustees in, purchaser has right to prosecute.
InreStebler 117
0.
Canceled claims:
No right to make in earlier application not ground for reinstatement in
reissue. Ex parte Wilson 8T
Certificate of correction:
Not granted where attention of attorney was called to alleged error before
payment of final fee. In re Jacobson /. 286
Digitized by
Google
SUBJECT-MATTEB INDEX. XXVn
GUdiDfl: Pace.
Amended, CQntaming new matter, final rejection. Ex parte Webster 312
Amended, filed in parent case, requirement to cancel and place in divi-
sional application. Ex parte Pope 141
Change in form. Ex parte Williams 288
Combination of old elements. Ex parte Baker 291
Covering new matter. Ex parte Thompson 297
Examiner's requirement that number be reduced. Ex parte Both 273
Filed after final rejection. Ex parte Greig 224
Final rejection of. ExparteBass 294
In response to request for reconsideration. Ex parte Dean 124
Not premature —
Ex parte Hartford 345
Ex parte Kelley 283
Premature —
Ex parte Hamby 308
Ex parte Mygatt 364
Substantially same as previously presented. Ex parte Myers 356
Inoperative devices. Ex parte Jennings 153
Matters of merit not reviewable on petition. Ex parte Jennings 153
Reference to parts of the device not claimed. Ex parte Compos 255
Rejection of—
Grounds for. Ex parte Weaver 80
Inapt language not basis for. Ex parte Williams 288
Ri^t to, concluded by decision in interference. *In re Marconi 483
Unpatentable over prior art. Ex parte Grosse and French 10
Conmiissioner of Patents:
Supervisory authority of —
Ex parte Nay lor 40
Dissolution of interference. Wetmore and Niemann v. Putnam 190
Construction of claims:
♦Kruh v. Thomas 528
Fmiction of apparatus. Ex parte Gold 162
Plitentability—
♦In re Gold 511
Ex parte Hodkinson 201
Ex parte Hogeand Riebe 287
Ex parte Horton and Keen 276
Ex parte Maas 212
Ex parte Nelson 340
Double use of old elements. *In re Morgan 481
Over prior art-
Ex parte Moore 112
♦In re Moore 472
♦In re Von Welsbach 505
Ex parte Welsbach 154
Not anticipated. Ex parte Buser 365
Use of old instrumentality merely double use. Ex parte Morgan 65
Construction of patents:
Not tnticipated, valid and infringed. **United States v. Soci6t6 Ano-
nymedes Anciens Etablissements Cail 620
Digitized by
Google
XXym BUBJECT-MATTEB INDSX.
GoDBtruction of rules: Pact.
Rule 68—
Ex parte Bettendorf 353
Ex parte Dietrick 11
Ex parte Greig 224
Rule 105. Lewis v. Deutsch v. Lum v. Murphy v. Canfield 220
Rule 109—
Crone v. White 24:^
Kuroweki v. Ramsey 238
Rule 126. Smith and Larsen r. Hill 97
Rule ISO-
Hopkins v. Cleal 213
Nobler. Levin 198
Weisv. Mack 400
Construction of statutes:
Act of June 25, 1910. **Crozier v. Fried Krupp, Aktiengesellschaft 633
Antitrust act **Standard Sanitary Manu&cturing Company etal. v. United
States 652
Section 4392, Revised Statutes. 6United States v. Patterson 418
Section 4886, Revised Statutes. Graham v. Langhaar 92
Section 4892, Revised Statutes. Ex parte Rose 194
Section 4894, Revised Statutes-
Ex parte La Jeunesse 398
*In re Mattullath 490
Section 4917, Revised Statutes. Moore and McKee v. Bradley v. Doering, jr. 205
Continuous applications:
Access to earlier applications granted on request. In re Henry W. Pea-
body & Co 290
Contract:
Implied upon the part of the Government. ♦♦United States v. Sooi^t^
Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements CaU 620
Jurisdiction of the courts. **New Marshall Engine Company et al. «.
Marshall Engine Company 617
Court of Ai4)ealB of the District of Columbia:
Appeal on priority of invention, patentability not considered —
♦Hopkins v. Cleal 545
♦Putnani v. Wetmore and Niemann 5.^
Decree reversed. ♦♦Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft. 63.^
Specific performance of contract, jurisdiction of State courts. ♦♦New Mar-
shall Engine Company et al. v. Marshall Engine Company 617
D.
Delay, in filing application:
New oath required. Ex parte Davison 94
Delay in prosecution of application:
Unavoidable, showing as to. ♦In re Mattullath 490
Delay in reduction to practice:
Bradley v. Miggett 183
Designs:
Additional illustrations. Ex parte Mygatt 219
Patentability over prior art —
Ex parte Madden 20
♦In re Madden 444
Ex parte Porter 36
Requirement of examiner as to illusi rat ion Ex parte Mygatt 21 9
Digitized by
Google
BUBJECT-MATTEB INDEX* XXIX
Designs — Continued. Pace.
Rules applicable to mechanical patents apply also to. Ex parte Betten-
dorf 363
Sectional view may be shown in drawings under certain conditions. Ex
parte Lohmann 336
Divisional application:
Access to earlier application granted only to party in interest or, in suit, on
order of judge. In re Henry W. Peabody & Co 290
Requirement for new oath. Ex parte Davison 94
Substitution of, for original application in interference. Burchartz v.
Nolan and Wright v . Christiansen 196
Division of application:
Action of examiner reviewable on appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief . Ex
parte Strimban 196
Control by office classification. Ex parte Strimban 196
Procefls and article. Ex parte Stroh 208
Required, interference before requirement was complied with, election of
species involved. Ex parte Burk 338
Response to examiners requirement for. Ex parte Henrii Helbronner, and
Reckling^usen • 204
Drawings:
Cancelation of superfluous sheets. Ex parte Rosenbluth 63
Inconsistent with discloflure. Ex parte Jennings 163
Limitation of number of sheets. Ex parte Hilliker 318
Sectional view permissible in design application where it makes certain
features clearer. Ex parte Lc^imann 336
B.
Eminent domain:
Authority of the United States to exercise power of. ♦♦Crozier r. Fried.
Erupp Aktiengesellschaft 633
Examiner of Interferences:
Action of, not disturbed unless there is abuse of discretion —
Christians V. Brunnenschenkl v. Rosanz 236
Gammeter v. Thropp 140
Klenkv. Kruse 136
P.
Fees:
Appeal withdrawn, return of fee requested. Ex parte William Peterman,
Inc ^ 91
Final hearing:
Delay in bringing motion. Noble v. Levin 198
No rig^t to make claims not to be urged at. Weisv. Mack : 400
F(»eign attorney:
Application prosecuted by associate. Ex parte Hanna and Hanna 279
L
Infringement:
Contributory. **Henry et al. v, A. B. Dick Company 575
Determination as to, before reduction to practice. ^Hawkins v. Ward — 453
Use of patented article, recovery of profits. '^Westinghouse Electric and
Manufacturing Company v. Wagner Electric and Manufacturing Company. 641
With improvements, recovery of profits. **Weetinghouse Electric and
Manu&M:turing Company v. Wagner Electric and Manufacturing Com-
pany 641
Digitized by
Google
XXX SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX.
Injunction: Ptc«.
Sale of artidee manufactured under patents, jurisdiction of State courts.
'^New Marshall Engine Company et al. v. Marshall Engine Company . . . 617
Use of patented device by Government. **Crozier v. Fried. Krupp
Aktiengesellschaft 633
Inoperative device:
Allegation of, not to be supported by affidavits. Quensel v. Knox v. Pries
t>. Murphy 372
Interference:
Affidavit imder Rule 76 insufficient, time to be given to comply with re-
quirements. Hodgkinson v. Rotter 379
Amendment of preliminary statements to all^e earlier dates. Thomas v.
Weintraub 66
Appeal from Examiners-in-Chief, errors allied but not urged. Thomas v.
Weintraub 55
Applicant shifting from one species of invention to another. Hollen v.
Kelly 329
Bar of public use established only by properly taken testimony, not by
affidavits. Kneisly v. Kaisling 12
Burden of proof, joint applicants. ♦Mills and Conn v. Darlington 460
Certified copy of part of application, sufficiency of determined by examiner.
Lewis V. Deutsch v. Lum v. Murphy v. Canfield 220
Claims unpatentable over prior art. Slingluff v, Bolin 267
Concurrent decisions of tribunals of Patent Office. ♦Hewitt v. Weintraub . . 618
Delay in bringing motion to dissolve, compelling reasons for. Rotter v.
Samuelson 7
Design held \mpatentabb3 on reference, declaration of, with prior patent
properly refused. Ex parte Taylor 1
Disclaimer filed by assignee of entire interest. Moore and McKee v. Brad-
ley V, Doering, jr 205
Dissolution of, claims not patentable to one party, such party cannot ques-
tion patentability to opponent. Sovereign and Lenders v. Lillie 402
Dissolution of, consent of parties not conclusive. Tomlinson v. Kiely 306
Divisional application, certified copy of part of parent application. Lewis
V. Deutsch V. Lum v. Murphy v. Canfield 220
Evidence as to third party immaterial. ♦Pope v. McKenzie 450
Evidence insufficient to establish priority of invention. Rinehart v.
Gibson 387
Evidence of reduction to practice. Huffv. Gulick 102
Failure to call witness. Steinberger v. Hewlett 323
Failure to introduce cimiulative evidence. Bettendorf v. O'Connor 41
Invention by third party not included in. Thomas v. Weintraub 56
Issue, broadest interpretation given consistent with language thereof.
Burden v. Manson 393
Order to show cause. Rotter v. Samuelson 7
Originality, proof of, difficult. ♦Rhinehart v, Gibson 673
Patentability. Hopkins v. Cleal 213
Practice in the courts. ♦Hewitt v. Weintraub 618
Prior applications relied on, invention not disclosed therein. Thomas v.
Weintraub 66
Real, not artificial, distinctions must be found in the applications involved.
♦Western Electric Co. v. Martin 567
Refusal to transmit motion to dissolve. Onderdonk v. Rontke v. Moffatt. . 296
Reopening, to introduce another application. Dixon v. Bliss 411
Digitized by VjOOQIC
SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX. XXXT
Interference — Gontinned. Page.
Reopening to take testimony, Webbw v. Wood 351
Request for, after final rejection. Ex parte Stickney 408
Rig^t to make claims. Emerson v. Sanders 14
Right to make claims not dependent on amendment but on whether speci-
fication and drawing will justify allowance of such claims. Seacombe v.
Burks 270
Senior party put upon proof . *Pope v. McKenzie 460
Substitution of application, burden of proof shifted by. Gold v. Gold v.
Gosper .., 370
Substitution of earlier application. Gold v. Gold v. Gosper 370
Suspension of, to consider references. Graham v. Langhaar 92
Transmission of motion to dissolve. Burden v. Manson 393
Invention:
New use of old composition. Ex parte Todd and Mayr 376
State of the art. Ex parte Grosse and French 10
J.
Judgment on the record:
Ghristians v. Brunnenschenkl v. Rosanz 235
Jurisdiction of the Gourt of Glaims:
**United States v. Soci6t6 Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements Gail 620
Jurisdiction of the Federal courts:
♦♦Henry et al. v, A. B. Dick Gompany 575
OMes arising under the Patent Laws, but not all cases in which patents may
be in controversy. **New Marshall Engine Gompany et al. v. Marshall
Engine Gompany 617
Jurisdiction of State courts:
Gertain questions relative to patents. **New Marshall Engine Gompany
et al. V. Marshall Engine Gompany 617
L.
Label:
Gopyright notice without date. Ex parte Fred. G. Mansfield Co 397
Notregistrable if mutilated. Ex parte Wilson 87
Laches:
Explanation of delay imder doctrine of. *Lederer v. Walker 560
Licenses:
Suits for violation of. **Henry et al. v. A. B. Dick Gompany 575
Limit of appeal:
Application for rehearing does not extend time . Ex parte Wilson 87
M.
Mandamus:
Decisions of the Gommissioner of Patents, review of. *XJnited States ex rel .
Scott and Scott, Executors, v, Moore, Gommissioner of Patents . 513
Monopolies:
Antitrust act. **Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Gompany et al. v.
United States 652
Use of patented device by combination in restraint of trade. **Standard
Sanitary Manufacturing Gompany et al. v. United States 652
Motion to amend the issue:
Groner. White 242
Accompanied by motion to dissolve, trauBmission refused. Weinberg v.
Boyce v. Russell and Russell 374
Delay in filing. Kiurowski v. Ramsey 238
Digitized by
Google
XXXn SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX.
Motion to amend preliminary statement: Pac«.
Consideration postponed to final hearing. Forsberg v. Bradbury 89
Motion to dissolve interference:
AflBdavit as to inoperativeness. Kejrs and Eraus v. Yimck 246
After the addition of a third party to the interference. Onderdonk v.
Rontke «. Moffatt 296
Alleged irregularity in declaration. Seacombe v. Burks 270
Based partiy on affidavits, transmission refused to such portion only . Dimn
V, Douglass 360
Delay in filing. Greene v. Covert 236
Filed before opening preliminary statement. Dunn v. Douglass 360
No appeal from favorable decifibn. Numan v. Ashley 59
On the groimd of —
Different meaning of claims. Mcintosh v. Riley 352
IndefinitenesB or vagueness of issuer-
Hewitt V . Holz V . Hewitt 69
Keyes and Eraus v. Yunck ! 246
Non-Fatentability, transmission refused —
Herbert v. Payne and Simms v. Friedlander 122
Tomlinson v . Kiely 305
Public use, transmission refused —
Dunnv. Douglass 360
Gardner «. Delson v, Sampliner v, Meyers 367
Petition to review favorable decision, supervisory authority of the Com-
missioner exercised in clear case only. Numan v. Ashley 59
Right to make claims-
Fowler v. Uptegraff 357
Greene v. Covert 236
Transmission of—
Insufficient grounds for refusing. Quenzel v. Knox v. Pries and
Murphy 372
Second motion. Greene v. Covert 236
Within the discretion of the Examiner of Interferences. Quensel v.
Enox V. Pries v. Murphy 372
Motion to take testimony:
Sufficiency of showing. Noble v. Levin 198
N.
New claims:
Presented after final rejection, showing required. Ex parte Dietrick 11
Notary public:
Foreign, certified to by another notary, certified to by consular officer of the
United States. Ex parte Rose 194
O.
Oath:
Application. 6United States v. Patterson 418
P.
Particular patents:
Valid and infringed . oTwitchell v. Rudolph A West Company 417
Patentability:
Ex parte Grosse and French 10
Anticipation. Ex parte Gold 162
Function of a machine not invention. *In re Tallmadge 434
Mechanical skill. *InreMaas 536
Digitized by
Google
SUBJECT-MATTER INDEX. XXXm
Fiitentability— Continued. Ftc«.
State of the art —
Ex parte Hodkinson 201
*In re Hodkinson 568
Ex parte Morgan 65
Substitution of metal for wood not invention. Ex parte Hobbs 275
Superiority of invention immaterial. *In re Hodkinaon 558
Fkktents:
License agreements. **Henry et al. i7. A. B. Dick Company 575
Property rights thereunder. ♦♦Henry et al. v. A. B. Dick Company 575
Rights conferred by —
♦♦Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company et al. v. United States. . 652
Perjury:
What constitutes. 6 United States «. Patterson 418
Petition to the Commissioner of Patents:
Points not petitionable. Ex parte Strimban 195