Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-10
QUESTIONING BOND
BE is Still Under Examination by
Commissioner Greeley.
MORE WEDDEBURN CASES UP
-4f --sf-ssesB
Treatment Of Clients With Unpat-
entabIe Inventions.
eel - W. s.rls-tsss--
TODD US TIES TIM my
TODAY ESTIMO NY

The investigation of charges in the case
of Wedderburn & Co. was resumed this
morning at 10 o'clock before the assistant
commissioner of patents.
The case of Hess. who invented an en-
velope cutter, was taken up. In this case
$50 in fees had been charged when the cir
culars of the company showed that $45
should have been the amount. but the bal
ance had not been returned to the client.
Mr.. Greeley wanted to know whether the
witness knew of any case in which the
company had charged less than the fees it
agreed upon for the prosecution of cases.
Mr.. Bond knew no such case.
In the case of Hiliard, inventor of an
eyeglass, the records showed it to have been
reported unfavorably by the searcher, who
cited reference which, in the opinion of
MIR. Bond, completely anticipated the in
vention. But the reviser of the case revised
the unfavorable report, patent was ap-
piled for and the inventor was told that ii
his invention was properly handled it would
become sodsend to thousands. If not to
millions, of people who have to use eye
glasses
The Case of POlsley.
The case OF Polsley involved an invention
for raising water from a cistern or other
reservoir by means of foot pressure on
bellows. The evidence showed that a
search was made August 1, 1896, and the
application filed October "a. The inventor
was awarded a silver medal August g. and
advised to take out foreign patents Oc-
tober &c, two days after his application was
filed. In the opinion of Mr.. Bond the refer
ences were a complete anticipation of this
invention. The invention anticipating this
device was dated 1909. The client had
been charged $50 when the company's fee
at that time SIS, and the balance was
rot returned to him.
In the case of Ballard, who wanted a
patent on compressed air water eleva-
tor, 1T was shown that no preliminary
search was ordered or made, as the client
sent Wedderburn & Co. SIS, told them to
get him a patent and said nothing about
any preliminary search. They charged the
regular fee of s45. In the opinion of MIR.
Bond there was nothing patentable in the
device.
In the case of Romberger, the witness
thought there was nothing patentable in
the device, yet Wedderburn & Co. had pro-
ceeded to make a favorable report on it,
and on the day they put in an application
for patent they sent the inventor silver
medal and when his application was finally
rejected they advised their client that the
only course to pursue was to appeal the
case to the board of examiners.
An Inventor Complains.
In the case of Buchanan. inventor of a
fill coupling, the witness said he thought
it contained nothing patentable. But a
favorable report was made by Wedderburn
& Co. After the case was under final
rejection Wedderburn & Co. advised the
inventor to appeal the case to the board
of appeals. telling him to have no anxiety
about 1t. He was also advised to sell his
rights in the application for patent. A
letter from Buchanan was read. demand
ing that Wedderburn & Co. return certain
fees. the client declaring his dissatisfac-
ton with the way the case had been prose-
cuted and blaming the company for having
90 yx-ith fha
facture Of the article he had patented,
which had cost him $500 when the article
was not patentabie. The company in re-
ply to this stated to the client that he
should appeal the case to the board Of
appeals.
Other Cases Mentioned.
After The Stars report of proceedings in
the Wedderburn case closed yesterday af-
ternoon, Mr.. Bond continued to testify
from the records Of Wedderburn & Co. upon
cases included in the exhibits.
The case of Mcconnell, whose invention
was fire extinguisher, was taken up. In
the opinion of Mr. Bond there was nothing
patentable in the case, but favorable re-
port was made and application for a pat
ent filed
Mr.. Greeley-"Was anything stated to this
man with reference to the value of this
device or a device of this class, or was any
suggestion of value made to him.
Mr.. Bond read letter from Wedderburn,
placing the value of the invention at $2O,-
600.
Mr.. Greeley handed the witness the appl
cation of Johnson and Fuller and asked if
there was any difference between that in
vention and the invention of Mcconnell
These inventions comprised the running of
a pipe to carry water around the top of a
house so that the roof could readily be
flooded. Mr.. Bond pointed out that the
difference between the two inventions was
that in one case the pipe for admitting
supplies the fSide in he
ether case this construction was arranged
under the caves, where 1t would be unob-
servabe.
References cited on these cases in the
opinion of Mr.. Bond completely anticipated
the inventions.
The Trfacen Case.
TIE investigation was resumed at 1:3O
o'clock, after recess of one hour. The
Triacea case. an invention for a wagon NUT
was gone over. The record showed that
Wedderburn & Co. advised their client that
an appeal be taken, and said that if it were
done they would use their best efforts to
have the board of appeals reverse the ex-
aminer. Nothing was shown by the records
to indicate that the attorneys did anything
other than submit the case to the board on
the record.
Mr.. Greeley inquired: Then, so far as
the record shows. this client paid Wedder-
burn & Co. SIS to take an appeal and said
they would use their best efforts to have
the claim allowed. but in fact did not work
on the appeal, so far as the record shows"
Mr.. Bond-'There was no brief filed
Further than that 1 cannot state as it IS
not customary to indorse on jackets the
fact OF personal appearance before the
board by the person in charge of the case"
Tie case Of Bulin attracted special at
tention, as Buin wrote the commissioner
of patents and declared that Wedderipurn
& Co. had told him his invention was pat
ebtable, and If he refused to give him a
patent he (the inventory would sue the
commissioner for $4,000 damages
The witness testified that in his on;n
ion the references were a complete anfici-
patton of the invention. But an application
for patent was made ard the case carried
to the board OF examiners, and finally re-
jected. The inventor was sent a silver
medal and the National Recorder wrote