National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-02-14
THE PATENT OFFICE.
Statement OF the Most Important and In
teresting Recent Decisions.

Statement OF the Most Important and In
toresting Recent Decisions.
Among the recent decisions in regard 10
patents, which are Of interest to those who
are engaged in furthering the inventive in
dustry of tho country, are the following
Elk parte James s. Groton, application for
patent for wiring hat brims and apparatus
therefor. The applicant made several
claims for distinct inventions embraced in
one application which he was informed wero
in violation Of rules Of practice, and he was
requested to limit his description and claims
to any one of his inventions he might elect.
This he declined to do, and his attorney fled
notice of an appeal to the examiners-in-
chief The examiner decided the proposed
appeal to be irregular in form, and refused to
entertain and forward IL, aud the APP
plicant appealed to the commissioner
from this decision. In passing
upon this appeal the commissioner
says: 1t is we'll settled that the examiners
in chief have no jurisdiction of the question
of the ioinder ofinventions in q single appli-
cation. An appeal to thom therefore on
such question was not in regular form, being
unauthorized, and the examiners refusal to
admit and answer the same is warranted by
rule 100, and ia approved. 1t is urged that
whether an appeal may be taken in given
case or from particular decision is n ques-
ton solely for the appellate tribunal to decide.
and familiar principle of law is citedin sup
port of tho proposition. recognize the correct
ness OF tho legal principle evoked, but do not
admit the application contended for. 1t is
not correct to say that the examiner is re-
quired by the rules TO prepare an answer and
forward an appeal whenever requested so to
do, regardless of the right of the applicant to
prosecute such an appeal. On the contrary,
where no such proceeding Is authorized, the
examiner may properly decline to entertain
it, aud his action in that behalf Is subject to
review by tho commissioner.
NJ. A. Pollok appeared for the applicant.
In the case of ex parte Sheedy & Boryland,
application for patent for ourled hair pickers,
which was filed in June, 1882, the parties in
their original application presented claims to
process, machine, and product. The
examiner decided that the product could not
be Joined with the process and machine in q
single application. The applicants then
eliminated all claims save those to the ma
chine, and this was rejected.
| They then employed new attorneys, who
sought to amend the rejected claims by
adding the claims to the process and
the product, which the examiner re-
fused tospermit, and an appeal was taken
to the commissioner. That officer sustains
the action Of the examiner saying that If
amendment were permitted, as asked, appli-
cants might secure an examination Of num-
| Der of distinct and independent inventions
upon the payment of but one fee. In this case
the product class can unquestionably be pro-
duced by hand as well as by the machine
shown, and hence the product and the machine
are properly separable. Moreover. the alleged
process is clearly nothing more than the func-
ton of the machine, and Is therefore not pat
entable
Messrs. Warwick & Bartlett for applicants.
The ex parte case of Willard A. Clarke, up.
plication for reversing gear for steam engines,
was an appeal from the decision of tho pri-
mary examiner, holding that the subject
matter of the application had boon dedicated
to the public by reason Of its appearing in a
patent previously granted the applicant, but
which did not contain claim thereto. II
appears that Clarke filed an application
Dec. IL, 1882, certain claims Of which
were put in interference with an application
filed by another party that he withdrew
matter not in interference, and made it the
basis of second application which was
patented, and in this patent was disclaimer
covering all features not therein claimed,
and clause reserving right to claim such
features in an application filed previously
Subsequently he filed an application on which
he claimed matter shown, described, and dis
claimed in the aforesaid patent, which was
contained also in a reservation clause The
question is, may he properly claim in thii
third application the matter disclaimed ant
reversed as above SGT forth.
In his decision the commissioner SAWS
Under these circumstances there can hardly
be doubt that the matter now claimed IL
the third application simply stands in lieu O.
the first to the extent of the matter sub
traoted from the latter. In other words, It Il
o division of the first application. Abandon
ment or dedication to tho public cannot BIZ
urged against the third application unless il
can be against the first. l therefore cannot
adopt the views of the examiner in holdina
that the invention claimed in the third
application has been dedicated to the public
The examiner is instructed, however that
neither application should be allowed until
amended SO as to disclaim the invention
shown but not claimed therein, with proper
cross references to the application in which
such claim is made.
In the case of Cowles vs. Phillips, for in.
sulating electric conductors, it appears that
Cowles applied for patent for an improve.
ment in insulated conductors, with two
claims-one to method Of insulating electric
conductors and one to the insulating cover.
ng. Phillips subsequently obtained patent
for the particular machine for insulating
electric conductors, with three claims-all
pretendedly to the particular machine
Cowles at once claimed an interference, and
this was ordered by the examiner. who sub
sequently stated that he had made this action
enormously, and dissolved it. An appeal from,
this action was made. Tho decision Of the
examiner is affirmed l.. W. Serrell appeared
for Cowles and j. J. Coombs for Phillips.
In the case of Ryder VS.. LassceIl, for straw
braiding machines, a motion was made in
behalf of Lasscell to dissolve the interior.
ence on suggestion of statutory bar con-
tanned in the decision of the examiners-in-
chief awarding priority of invention on the
particular issue before them to Ryder. It is
alleged that both parties obtained patents
during the tendency of the interference and
that these patents cover substantially the
subject matter Of the issue. The motion was
granted and the interference dissolved A.
M. Wooster appeared for Ryder and A. Pol