The evening times., 1897-07-03

kind is not to be expected, and the truth
of what iias Just been statedis emph asized
In this particular case by the fact that
examiners who had reported against these
respondents without opportunity by them
t. be heard, charging them with having ap-
Piled for patents or inventions which were
not patentat'le, were afterward, as Will
more fully appear by the exhibits in this
case, compelled to admit that they had
themselves subsequently granted patents
ON devices OF inventions making applea-
ton for patents upon which they had con-
dcmned these correspondents
1T is well-known fact that the most
capable attorneys often make applIca tIpns
for patents that are finally rejected be-
cause of non -patenta bility, and it is most
respectfully submitted that IL is not
to he imputed to these attorneys that they
have been guilty OF fraud. 1fttth an
imputation can he made against an at
torney whose opinion AZ To tie ratentabil-
ity of an invention tuIns out 20 be Incorrect,
it would result in the disbarraent cf Prob
ably every attorney who has been engaged
in practicing before the Patent Office"
The firm requests with Iegari 10 this
charge also that a compa risen be- made
tween its work and that of .ther st-
torneys. With relation 10 the charges
that the Offering OF prizes by the firm
Is intended TO induce persons to apply for
patents upon inventions that have al
ready been patented, or IN sny ether way
has fraudulent intent, WesileTbum Il Co.
say, in paIt:
These respondents deny that persons
areinducedby promises and offersu of medals
and prizes To make eunpatentable Inventions.
BY this adve rtisement offer ofniedals
nothing Is done or intended than TO stinu
late tfeinventive facultiesof those to whom
such offers are sent. Its difficult
to see row there can be any wrong, from a
InGrsIl, legal, or any other standpoint, IN
one nan urging another to exert his in
genuity in the matter of invention, and for
the purpose Cf coInpensating him therefor
TO give him prize or medal If he sue
ceeds in submitting an invention that is
considered worthy OF such prize.
1t is untrue that by such circulars persons
are Induced to make unpatentable inren-
veutiOns, and 70 apply for patents there
upon, and these respondents invite tie
production of any case or cases to sub
stantiate this charge and demand full oI-
portunty to meet the same upon the
hearing thereof.
As To the alleged forgery OF a letter
OF Mr.. Sulzcr recommending John Wedder
burn AZ an honest and reliable practitioner,
the reply is The ans wer that Mr. Sulzer
did write the letter: that Mr. Suzer did
sign Tie letter in question. is evidenccd
by the letter itself which will be produced
and exhibited at the proper time, ami
copy OF which is Sctout in the charges, aud
Ir SulzeT Will not deny his signature Il
called upon To testify in that regard
From tlis il appears that the char ge that
he aforesaid testimonial is in the nature
IF "a forgcIyis gTatuitouS and unfounded"
As Ia tie charge that almost one half Of
Tho publications. filed by the firm have been
found hy the examiners in charge to con
tain no patentablc sub ect-mat,cr, the
reply il mad:
Out of 3,763 applications filed
betweea the dates named in the charge.
according to the REPORTS submitted with
these charges, only $40 have been finally
rejected The charge is, therefore. ms
lracihG ard deceptive If, Oh the otLer
hand, the examiners have teen superb
oiaIly goiag through the cases filed 10y
respondents not in the regular line of
their duty. and rot for tie purpose Of
finally TasS'ng upon them in their regular
order, hui for the purTusc Of endeavoring
To sutstantf3tc these Charges, tire or rtiris.n
that has been Gir"cfed against these re
STondents should he turned in another
direct lpn
Respondents submit that persons who
have filed applications for patents through
them are entitled TO have fun hearings ,:-.r
their applications. according 10 The up.al
and customary methods Of procedure, end
that their cases should not he prejcticc.i
by preliminary and upcrfiCial copz,C-
Grafton by tie examiner before they are
searched in their regular order, for The pur-
pose Of condemning the respondents -
In The charges flied against Wedderrurn
\ Co. there were several specific cases
mentioned a. showing frauds on the part uf
the firm These cases are each taken up
by the company in It's answer
M hea ring OF the Weiderburn case was
had today except in the reading Of the
answer OF Wedderburn X Co Some htlic
documentary evidence In substantial. 's,a If
the answer was introduced The hearing
was adjourned, to meet next week day
not set on account of the illness Of Sir.
Fora. one OF the attorneys for WcdderbuIn
Mr. wilson