Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-12
constitutes but slight difference from an


invention already patented.
I'm view of the fact that you had no
knowledge of the invention described in
the inclcsed reference you have shown the
same degree Of inventive skill iE devising
your own that procured the patent for
this invention, and the ingenuity and crea-
tive ability heretofore displayed by you
will undoubtedly assist you to SO modify
the invention as to avoid the inclosed ref
erence and perhaps to obtain a patent
which will be a source of considerable
revenue to you.
when you are ready to proceed with
your application for patent. please send US
a clear sketch and description OF your in
vention in it's perfected form, CT, # con-
venient model of the same, and at the
same time remit SO preliminary fee. which
sheet of official drawings. Upon receipt CT
this amount another search will be made,
If necessary, and the application will be
prepared and forwarded to you for APP
Eroval and execution.
1.-The value of patents depends largely
upon the manner in which they are ham
died. We make a speciality of selling pat
ents and inventions, and when your appli-
cation Is safely flied in The United States
patent office, SO that no one else can get
ahead Of you, shall Immediately seek A
purchaser for your device, upon due au-
thority from you. Very truly, yours.
JOHN WEDDERBURN x CO..
A short discussion of the scope of the in
vestigation in progress was brought UP by
Judge Wilson wanting to know whether
the assistant commissioner proposed to
consider testimony tending to make com
parison of the work of Wedderburn & Co.
with other clients. He referred to attor-
neys being jealous of the business Of the
respondents. and said he was fully pre-
pared to make a comparison of the work
of Wedderburn & Co., If desired.
Mr. Small remarked that his clients were
not i,,f1uenced by Jealousy, but by desire
to have right methods of business pur-
sued.
Other Cases Taken Up.
Mr.. Bond was examined On several cases
before a recess was taken for luncheon.
In the case of Hermida, tobacco pipe in
vention, it was searched and acted upon
since Mr.. Bond went with Wedderburn &
Co. The search resulted in a favorable
report by the searcher. and application for
a patent was filed. Then the case was put
in the hands of another searcher, and an
anticipating reference was found. but Of
that the inventor was not notified. The
applica ton was rejected July 20, 1891 No
money had been returned to the client and
Mr. Bond testified that this had not been
done, as his attention had not been called
to the case. He said he had very large
number of people under him, and for that
reason it was not always possible to avoid
such mistakes. The case had slipped
through without coming to him.
After Recess.
At 10 o'clock Mr. Bond again went on
the stand.
Mr.. Greeley asked Mr.. Bond whether
when cases were appealed while he was
with Wedderburn & Co. 1t was common to
cite references to clients and to inform
them of the condition of the case.
Mr.. Bend could not state whether or not
references had been sent in such cases.
In reply to questions by the assistant
coi6 no
E. B. Stocking & Co. before going with
Wedderburn & Co., and left their employ
February ID.
a MT G re My stockine 9.o you leave Tue
Mr.. Bend: IF l had any reason would
refuse to state 1t "
Mr. Greeley: did you write any letters
to any of Mr. Stockings clients after you
left his employ to induce them to become
clients of your present employers?
Mr.. Bond hesitated, and Mr.. Ford, OF
counsel for the respondents, objected that
such a question was not competent to ask
the witness.
Mr. Bond-"I will answer any question to
place me straight before the office or any
body else. 1 never did in my NE write
such letters to induce them to take their
business to John Wedderburn & Co., my
self or any one else. If anybody has that
charge to make l would like to answer
it."
Mr. Bond objected to answering questions
late to Wedderburn & Co. in the present
investigation.
A number of cases were then taken up.
and Mr. Bond asked to testify regarding
them. The case of Mathis, inventor of
kew fastener, a device to prevent putting
a key in a lock, was called UP.
Mr.. Bond could see nothing patentable in
the device. 1t had been reported UPON
unfayorably by the searcher, but the re-
wiser considered it favorable over the refer
ence found by the searcher. Mr.. Pond
did not think that reference was an antici-
patton of IL, but the search was not COM
plete, The trouble arose, he said. because
Snyder failed to give 1t his attention.