Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-07
Further inquired Into in the Case Of
e Wedderburn.
Mr.. sB0Nb STILL GIVING TESTIMONY
The Question Of Fees Brought Out
%
by Mr.. Greeley.
FACE. CASE ON IT'S MERITS

Tie investigation of the firm Of john
Wedderbrrn & Co, before the assistant
commissioner Of patents this morning was
opened with an explanation by E. H. Bond
of the ma nner in which records of searches
have been kept by the firm since Mr.. Bond
has been connected with it.
Mr.. Bond produced jackets of cases
marked to show the manner in which
searches were made. the cases he read
showing that the reviewer had questioned
the favorable report of the searcher
dered a research by another employe and
finally, en- the evidence brought out by
the research, the invention was pronounced
Unratentable.
Assistant Commissioner Greeley inspected
the records and Law Clerk Stauffer in
quired how Mr. Bond had selected the cases
he exhibited
The witness replied that they had been
selected at random
Judge Wiison-"Have you a record of
cases of searches while you were in charge
of the search depal tment of John Wedder-
burn q Co.? If so, give US the whole num-
Der and the number Of favorable and I'M
favorable reports.
Mr.. Bond-''While was in charge of the
search department there were 7,12S origi-
nal searches, of which Isl Were favora BILE
SiXty-two and one-half per cent were re-
searches, but not the cases that were per-
sonally examined and in which further in
formation was called for from the client.
In many cases there was obscurity of de-
Scription in the drawing and further in
formation was asked before being put in
the hands of SearcherS'
Judge Wilson-'What was the period in
which these searches were made?"
Mr.. Bond-"Between February and May
8, 1897
Sarah Faulkner's Case.
Mr.. Greeley asked the witness to read
letter written to Sarah Faulkner by We'd
derburn & Co. on November a. which was
cone, and it disclosed nothing regarding
the previous rejection of the case. 1t was
further shown that it was in response to
specific inquiries in a letter from the client
OF November II, 1896.
Mr.. Greeley-''What was the condition Of
the case when that letter of November "a
was written?"
Mr.. Bond-"It was under rejection of
October 81"
Judge Wilson-"I would like to under
stand right here whether. 1t is claimed
that 1t is the duty Of the attorney to advise
tie client Of every action taken by the
patent office. If that is claimed 1 wish to
rut in evidence bearing upon it,"
Mr. stauffer-"I would not say that but
1t is the dirty of the attorney to keep his
client generally informed of the status Of
the case"
Judge Wilson-"I would like to know, be-
cause waIt to meet your contention
Mr. Stauffer-"That would depend upon
the condition of each case"
Mr.. Nintef-"We undertake to show tina.
throushout the whole of that partic ular
case Ca It. attorneys did not keep the client
Judge WiIson-'In other words. each in
dividual case stands on it's merits?'
Mr.. Winter-"Exactly."
The Case of Bcnrdsley.
In the case of Beardsley search was made
October B. 1896. and application rejected
December IL. A letter to the client by
Wedderburn & Co. of January was read,
stating that the firm was doing everything
in their power toward the end of getting
the patent.
Mr. Gree!ey-"yNhat was being done then
to expedite the case?"
Mr.. Bond-'I do not know but do know
the office was some two months behind
hand with their amendments. and the
method of doing business was to take I'D
cases in order of rejection. Business was
done there on the same principle in that
respect that 1t is done in the patent office.
We take up papers in their regular turn"
1t WAS shown that the amendment in the
above case was filed March IT., which was
the first action by the firm after it's rejec-
ton. December II. The client had been
advised to take out foreign patents after
the search had been made and before the
application was filed.
The Case of MaEaye.
The case Of Magaye was taken up. The
search had been made August IA, 1896; ap-
plication rejected September %; rejected
three times; amended three times, and
finally rejected The invention was of
thin and soft rubber finger tip to prevent
ii jury to finger in counting money or pa
pers rapidly.
Judge Wison-"It was amended to meet
the objections, was it not?'
Mr.. Bond-"It was; and the office had to
go into the division of stationery in order
to finally reject the claims"
Judge Wilson-"In view of the first ref
erences, give your opinion as to the pat
entability of the invention"
Mr.. Bond-'In that view 1 regard it
patentable."
In this case it was shown that Wedder-
burn & Company had advised the client
that they regarded the invention worth
5000 if sold outright, or would yield
handsome income for several years il sold
Oil the royalty plan. In response to a let
ter, Wedderburn & Company said they
would give, free of charge, advice as to
patentability and STABILITY of any inven-
tiCn.
4 Patentable Invention.
Mr.. Greeley-"What is your understand
irg of the expression that an invention is
of patentable nature?"
Mr.. Bond-"Many times we get letters
asking if device for making thing of
five instead of seven parts: of celluloid in
stead of some other material; making a
fence post Of galvanized iron instead of
WOOD, would be regarded as patentabIe.
We always advise them regarding the
character of features that would be regard
ed as patentable. Wedderburn & Co. have
never regarded their offer to advise as to the
patentability of articles as an offer to make
examination of the records of the patent
Office without charge"
After the, client was advised as to the
"ratentabiljty' of his device it was shown
that he had been asked for a fee of S. for
making Special search of the records
before that search was begun.
In the case of Howroyd, search made July
;. 1S9G?and application for patent filed Sep
TENDER 30. atejection wills made under one
British and two United States patents; ap-
plica.tion was amended and again rejected;
again amensled and rejected, and afterward
finally reected. January, 81
Judge Wifson-"Take the American pat
ents, examine them and state whether the
American patents fully anticipate that in
ventioR." u,
MIR. Rond1"I think there was nothing
patentable in it,
81 AsQuestion of Fees.
The assistant commissioner questioned