National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-01-25
THE PATENT OFFICE,
Facts rs 20 the Telephone Invention
come Recent Decisions.


Tho greatest interest is felt in patent cir
Giles as to tho decision to be rendered in the
celebrated telephone interference case which
is now pending before the examiners-in-chic
in the patent office. 1t will DO remembered
that the hearing of this case was had about
month ago, when eminent counsel repro
scented the different parties, including ex-Sena-
tor ConSling, who appeared for Edison.
There is a suit in tho United States circuit
court for the southern district of New York,
however, that is even more interesting than
this interference case and the result OF which
will be more far-reaching. Mr. Drawbaugh
claims to have invented and practically
tested q telephone as early as 1867, whereas
Mr.. Bells patent dates from Feb. IA,
1876. He has filed tho testimony
of large number of his neighbors
who aver that between 1867 and 1870 MIR.
Drawbaugh did construct and operate speech
transmitting telephones, and has submitted
modes of tho instruments which he made.
This seems to make out prims facic case in
his favor, aud goes to show that he is the real
inventor of the telephone, and not Prof Bell,
as has been generally supposed.
IL has been the custom in the patent office
for the various chiefs OF the examining
divisions to submit about tho first Of January
n report OF the additional subclassiilcations'
that have grown up in their divisions during
tho past year, and then these reports have been
turned over to committee appointed by the
commissioner, who have recommended such
| transfers of duties and classes as seemed to
them proper. Commissioner Butterworth has,
however, adopted method of looking into
this matter Of Reconsideration himself, for in
stead of appointing committee he has called
upon each chief of division for a report as to
his own views OF what changes, If any, would
| best promote the interests Of his division. He
| thus will get the views of the examiners di-
rect without having them filtered through o
committee.
The commissioner is also collecting the
necessary data for his annual report to con-
| gress of tho business of the Office for the
calendar year, which must be submitted dur
ing the month Of January.
| A nice point came up before the commits
sioner on Saturday last in the matter of an
interlocutory appeal by Messrs. Warwick q
Bartlett, attorneys for X. III. Andrews, who ID
an applicant for morticing and boxing ma
| chine. The attorneys thought that the eK-
aminer had not complied with rule SO Of the
rules of practice. This rule provides that
| The first step in the examination of an ap-
| plication is to determine whether it is in all
respects in proper form. If the objections
are not vital the application may be con
sidered on its merits. but if vital the appli'
cant must be notified fully of the objections
and no action will be taken ON its merits until
the formal objections are disposed of.
In this case number Of claims were deemed
| vitality defective and the applicant so mott
fed, but the examiner roceeded to consider
upon their merits the claims which were in
proper form. An appeal was taken from thu
examiner, and the commissioner decided tina
the claims to which he objected were no
vitality defective. He then consid
cred the whole case ON its merits
and cited references against certain claims
The attorneys alleged that these references
were not pertinent and appealed to the com
missioner, who, in a lengthy opinion, goinI
over the whole case, concluded that the ex
amincr had not given the attorneys any ius
cause for complaint and dismissed the peti
| ton.