Page. McKay & Copeland Lasting Machine Company v. Dizer et al Merritt v. Middleton et al.... Merrow. Shoemaker et al. v.... Meyer v. Dr. B. L. Bull Vegetable Medicine Company. Middleton et al. Merritt v...... Miller v. Donovan et al..... Miller et al. v. Eagle Manufacturing Company.. 388 117 Mergenthaler Linotype Company r. Commissioner of Patents et al.. 186 432 494 197 432 461 147 Missouri Cob Pipe Company et al. H. Tibbe & Son Manufacturing Company v. 461 482 285 Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company. 238 476 461 N. National Cash Register Company et al. v. Lamson Consolidated Store Service 283 Newark Watch Case Material Company . Wilmot & Hobbs Manufacturing 505 New York Air Brake Company et al. O. H. Jewell Filter Company et al. New York Filter Company v.... Oshkosh Match Works et al. Diamond Match Company v .... Oval Wood Dish Company et al. v. Sandy Creek (New York) Wood Manufacturing Company 216 P. Pacific Cable Railway Company v. Butte City Street Railway Company.. Pennsylvania Steel Company. Johnson Company v....... 525 402 Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit and Insurance Company, trustee, et al. Edison Electric Light Company et al. v.. 195 Pittsburgh Reduction Company v. Cowles Electric Smelting and Aluminum 573,637 R. Reece Button-Hole Machine Company v. Globe Button-Hole Machine Company et al... Sandy Creek (New York) Wood Manufacturing Company. Oval Wood Dish Shapleigh v. Chester Electric Light and Power Company et al 390 Spreckles Sugar Refining Company. Edison Electric Light Company et al. v. 195 471 Steiner Fire Extinguisher Company v. City of Adrian... 201 Stevens et al. Fuller & Johnson Manufacturing Company et al. v........... 446 341 T. Thomson Electric Welding Company v. Two Rivers Manufacturing Company Two Rivers Manufacturing Company et al. Thomson Electric Welding Company v.... 632 U. United States ex rel. The State of South Carolina v. Commissioner of Patents. 174, 318 701 658 Weeks. Philadelphia Novelty Manufacturing Company v 402 510 Wells, Jr., et al. v. Reynolds et al............... Westinghouse, Jr., v. Duncan Page. 664 170 Westinghouse et al. v. Edison Electric Light Company.... Westinghouse Air Brake Company v. New York Air Brake Company et al..... 692 594 594 518 William Wharton, Jr., & Company, Limited, et al. Johnson Street Steel Rail 247 Williams et al. Rudolph et al. v. 565 Wilmot & Hobbs Manufacturing Company. Newark Watch Case Material DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOR THE YEAR 1894. EX PARTE HULBERT. Decided December 2, 1893. 66 O. G., 315. 1. REJECTION FOR INDIVISIBILITY—APPEAL. A rejection may be given upon a patent granted to the same inventor upon an application which was pending concurrently with the application containing the rejected claim, and such rejection is, like all others, appealable to the Examiners-in-Chief. 2. PETITION-APPEAL. "There is no petition from the rejection of a claim by the Primary Examiner upon anything which he may hold is a substantial disclosure and anticipation of a claim." The remedy is by appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief. ON PETITION. WASHING-MACHINE CYLINDER. Application of Ralph D. W. Hulbert filed April 4, 1892, No. 427,649. Messrs. C. & E. W. Bradford for the applicant FISHER, Assistant Commissioner: This is a petition taken from the action of the Primary Examiner requesting that the Examiner be instructed that he may not reject a claim of an application upon a patent granted to the same inventor upon an application which was pending concurrently with the present application. There can be no question that he may so reject. In ex parte Feister (C. D., 1890, 167; 53 O. G., 1089) it was held that the practice established by ex parte Langlois (C. D., 1878, 57; 14 O. G., 84) and ex parte Gaboury (C. D., 1886, 28; 37 O. G., 217) was correct; that a later application was no bar to the allowance of an earlier application by the same applicant for the same invention, and that after one had gone to issue or patent the other should not be allowed. 10693 PAT-1 1 This rule carried with it, as a corollary, that the Examiner should reject in such a case, and the decision had as a companion ex parte Woodward, (C. D., 1890, 169; 53 O. G., 1090,) which was an approval of a rejection for indivisibility of invention. It would naturally follow from these cases that the Examiner, if he refused a claim on such a ground, should reject, whether applicant admitted or denied identity or indivisibility, and that from such a rejec tion appeal would lie to the Examiners-in-Chief, and this was expressly decided in ex parte Feister, (C. D., 1892, 203; 61 O. G., 152,) ex parte Cahill, (C. D., 1893, 78; 63 O. G., 1815,) ex parte McDonald, (C. D., 1893, 99; 64 O. G., 857,) and ex parte Seymour, (C. D., 1893, 127; 65 O. G., 751.) These cases clearly and emphatically hold that there is no petition from the rejection of a claim by the Primary Examiner upon anything which he may hold is a substantial disclosure and anticipation of the claim, and that applicant's remedy is by appeal to the Board of Examiners-inChief. The petition is therefore dismissed. KINYON . CARTER. Decided December 21, 1893. 1. INTERFERENCE--Broad and Narrow CLAIMS. Where different specific forms are shown by two applicants, both capable of being covered by a broad claim, and one applicant makes such broad claim and the other makes a more limited claim to the same structure, there is an interference, which may be avoided by the disclaimer provided for by Rule 107. 2. SAME-SAME. The rule of Reed v. Landman (C. D., 1891, 73; 55 O. G., 1275) does not apply where both parties are applicants. 3. SAME-SAMe-DifferencES NOT PATENTABLE. An additional reason for not dissolving is that the features of novelty on which the claims were allowed are the same in each case, and that the differences of the specific claim over the broad one are held by the Examiner immaterial in view of the prior state of the art. APPEAL on motion. PUZZLE. Application of Frederick G. Kinyon filed May 9, 1892, No. 432,263. Application of William T. Carter filed September 15, 1891, No. 405.776. Messrs. C. A. Snow & Co. for Kinyon. Mr. John F. Kerr for Carter. FISHER, Asssistant Commissioner: This is an appeal taken from the decision of the Primary Examiner refusing to dissolve the above-entitled interference. |