28 (App.D.C.) Application for design patent on tapering grip vacuum cleaner handle held properly denied, as plainly utilitarian, not ornamental.-In re Willis, 26 F. (2d) 567.

30 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Mere conception is not invention.-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

32 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to patentability should be resolved in favor of applicant.-Application of Parr, 26 F. (2d) 1009.

(B) Novelty.

II. PATENTABILITY. (A) Invention.

16 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) To authorize patent, there must be creative mental conception, as distinguished from ordinary reasoning faculties and facility of manipulation. King Ventilating Co. v. St. James Ventilating Co., 26 F. (2d) 357, affirming decree (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 615.

16 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) "Invention" means new idea, thought, or concept, and must include means by which given result may be obtained.Hookless Fastener Co. v. H. L. Rogers Co., 26 F. (2d) 264.

17(3) (App.D.C.) Edible ice cream containers held patentable as advance in art.-Application of Parr, 26 F. (2d) 1009.

17(3) (App.D.C.) Beverage mixer with spout and operating handle and pair of stationary handles on each side held not patentable.Application of Pierson, 26 F.(2d) 1010.

Attaching handles to receptacle or article is not invention.-Id.

creasing sales of patented article are unimportant, when invention is clearly without patentable novelty.-King Ventilating Co. v. St. James Ventilating Co., 26 F. (2d) 357, affirming decree (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 615.

42 (App.D.C.) Claims 1, 5, and 7 of application relating to mechanical pencil held patentable, as involving novel elements and characteristics. In re Deli, 26 F. (2d) 1008.

43 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Mere difference in dimension cannot add novelty to new design.King Ventilating Co. v. St. James Ventilating Co., 26 F. (2d) 357, affirming decree (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 615.

43 (App.D.C.) Application for design patent on tapering grip vacuum cleaner handle held properly denied for want of novelty.-In re Willis, 26 F. (2d) 567.

(C) Utility.

48 (App.D.C.) Improvement in automobile shock absorbers held not inoperative.-Lovejoy v. Shultz, 26 F. (2d) 562.

(D) Anticipation.

Claims covering corrugated capillary tubing for thermometers and instrument incorporating tubing and methods of manufacture held patentable. Id.

with side walls at 60-degree angle and magnetite lining securing noncorrosive embankment, held not to embody disclosure of British patent antedating patents for reverberatory smelting furnaces.-Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 26 F. (2d) 651, remanding for further findings (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 815.

22 (App.D.C.) Claims relating to variable condensers for use in radio receiving sets adapting scale from one method to another, held properly denied for want of invention.-In re Nyman, 26 F. (2d) 558, followed in 26 F.(2d) 559.

26(114) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Mere aggregation of old elements does not amount to invention. -De Lore v. St. Louis Lithopone Co., 26 F. (2d) 864.

26(14) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Selection and regrouping of old elements to solve problem of pumping heavy viscous material from tanks of ships was invention.-Salvage Process Co. v. James Shewan & Sons, 26 F. (2d) 258.

26(2) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Combination of old elements into new association is patentable, if new and beneficial result is produced.-Hiler Audio Corporation v. General Radio Co., 26 F. (2d) 475.

26(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Combination of old elements, producing new result, is patentable. -De Lore v. St. Louis Lithopone Co., 26 F. (2d) 864.

C28 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Exercise of inventive faculty is as essential to validity of design patent as of patent for mechanical device.-King Ventilating Co. v. St. James Ventilating Co., 26 F.(2d) 357, affirming decree (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 615.

Application of old flared base to old top or superstructure in design patent for barn ventilator held not patentable invention.-Id.

might be made to carry on particular process is not sufficient to anticipate such process.Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 26 F. (2d) 651, remanding for further findings (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 815.

65 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Foreign patents, to be anticipatory, must be limited to what is clearly and definitely expressed therein.-De Lore v. St. Louis Lithopone Co., 26 F. (2d) 864.

65 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Foreign patent is anticipatory only if it enables one skilled in art to practice it without experiments.-Schuricht v. McNutt v. Willis, 26 F. (2d) 388.

66(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Suggestions found in prior patents relating to different art, which might have led to same result, do not constitute defense to infringement.-Griswold v. Buckle Proof Shingle Co., 26 F. (2d) 466.

66(2) (App.D.C.) Claim relating to furnaces for device for preheating air held not anticipated.-Application of Foltz, 26 F. (2d) 983.

72(1) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Claims for methods of manufacture of capillary tubing for use in thermometers and like instruments held properly rejected, in view of prior patents.Schlaich v. Robertson, 26 F.(2d) 681.

72(1) (App.D.C.) Applicant held entitled to patent for fiber board shipping case.-In re Bliss, 26 F. (2d) 524.

72(1) (App.D.C.) Application for patent for alleged improvement on high speed water turbine wheels held properly denied.-In re Kaplan, 26 F. (2d) 565.

72(3) (App.D.C.) Claims relating to steam joint in rotary drier held anticipated, in view of identity of materials.-In re Berry, 26 F. (2d) 1012.

74 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Patentee is charged with knowledge of disclosures of prior patents.Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Baltimore Truck Tire Service Corporation, 26 F. (2d) 686.

III. PERSONS ENTITLED TO PATENTS.

90(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Patentee first disclosing thing, but not claiming it, is its prior inventor.-Grasselli Chemical Co. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co., 26 F. (2d) 305.

90(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Person first conceiving of invention, but last to reduce to practice, cannot claim patent, without proof of reasonable diligence.--Martin v. Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Co., 26 F. (2d) 701.

90 (3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Delay from July, 1919, till April 3, 1923, in reducing invention to practice, held lack of diligence.-Martin v. Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Co., 26 F. (2d) 701.

preponderance of evidence.-Downs v. Andrews, 26 F.(2d) 522.

109 (App.D.C.) Patentees, failing for four years to make any claims conflicting with another pending application, held estopped thereafter (35 USCA § 52).--In re Allsop, 26 F.(2d) 559.

112(3) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Presumption of patentability arising from grant of patent is strengthened by fact that apparatus 'met needs of new situation and secured approbation of public.-Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Baltimore Truck Tire Service Corporation, 26 F. (2d) 686. 112(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Grant of patent raises presumption of validity.-Hookless Fastener Co. v. H. L. Rogers Co., 26 F. (2d) 264. 112(4) (U.S.D.C.La.) Allowance of patent by Patent Office after withdrawing reference to other patent creates presumption of substantial difference.-Henderson v. Welch Dry Kiln Co., 26 F. (2d) 810.

91(1) (App.D.C.) Rule as to burden of proof is not affected by issue of patent to senior party at time junior party's application was pending. -Conover v. Wohl, 26 F. (2d) 566.

91(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Evidence held to support finding that plaintiff was entitled to priority of invention (35 USCA § 63).-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

91 (3) (App.D.C.) Junior party to interference proceeding involving priority must sustain burden of proof by preponderance of evidence. Waern v. Carter, 26 F. (2d) 561.

91(4) (App.D.C.) Senior party held properly awarded priority for process for fractional sublimation of solids.-Downs v. Andrews, 26 F. (2d) 522.

91(4) (App.D.C.) Senior party held properly awarded priority as to invention relating to pasting machines.-Waern v. Carter, 26 F. (2d) 561.

91 (4) (App.D.C.) Junior party held properly awarded priority of invention relating to method of oxidizing anthracene.-Conover v. Wohl, 26 F. (2d)_566.

~91(4) (App.D.C.) Senior party held entitled to priority as to method for making concrete.-Hayde v. Boynton, 26 F. (2d) 978.

92 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Where novelty of invention is joint production of two parties, one should not be awarded sole patent.-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

93 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) General rule is that additions made by employee to preconceived design of employer are property of employer, and may be embodied in his patent.-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

Suggestions of employee of University as to invention held not to inure to another employee, on theory that latter was employer.-Id.

IV. APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

97 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Assignee of foreign patent held not entitled to carry back date of invention to earlier foreign filing date.-Grasselli Chemical Co. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co., 26 F. (2d) 305.

97 (App.D.C.) Citizen of free city of Danzig held entitled to privileges of law relating to patents (Nolan Act [35 USCA §§ 80-87]).Conover v. Wohl, 26 F. (2d) 566.

113(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Decision of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia in patent matter binds Patent Office (35 USCA § 63).-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

114 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Decision of Court of Appeals of District of Columbia in patent matter does not bar equity suit by unsuccessful party (35 USCA § 63).-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

In suit under statute to obtain patent, plaintiff has burden of proof (35 USCA § 63).-Id.

In reviewing conflicting testimony in suit for patent, great weight must be given findings of trial court, who could observe witnesses.-Id.

On appeal in suit by unsuccessful applicant against patentee for patent, patentee held not in position to urge that patent should be joint one (35 USCA § 63).-Id.

114 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Decisions of Patent Office should be given weight in suit by unsuccessful applicant for patent (35 USCA § 63).-Martin v. Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Co., 26 F. (2d) 701.

Unsuccessful applicant, suing for patent, must show he conceived invention described by precise language used in interference, constituting claims of successful party (35 USCA $ 63).-Id.

Applicant. suing under statute for patent, must establish case by evidence carrying thorough conviction (35 USCA § 63).-Id.

V. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF LETTERS PATENT.

118 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where two patents were pending at same time, it is immaterial that invention of claim of one patent was disclosed in specifications of other.-Gibbs v. Triumph Trap Co., 26 F. (2d) 312.

129(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Licensee from patentee may not deny validity of patent.-Eskimo Pie Corporation v. National Ice Cream Co., 26 F. (2d) 901, affirming order (D. C.) 20 F. (2d) 1003.

Licensee's agreement not to contest validity of patent held not to prevent attack on patent's validity after termination of license by licensor's revocation.-Id.

VII. REISSUES.

106 (3) (App.D.C.) In interference proceeding, junior party has burden of proving case by

scribed in reissue differed from that of original patent reissue should not have been granted after lapse of time showing unreasonable delay. Elliott Co. v. H. S. B. W.-Cochrane Corporation, 26 F. (2d) 815.

161 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Claims of patent must be limited to patent's contribution to the art.

226 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Letting of contracts for cleaning of ships by defendant to firm using infringing apparatus held not to constitute infringement.-Salvage Process Co. V. James Shewan & Sons, 26 F. (2d) 258.

226 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Infringement is not avoided by imperfectly practicing invention.Gibbs v. Triumph Trap Co., 26 F. (2d) 312.

231 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) One who obtains same result through other method is not infringer.Elliott Co. v. H. S. B. W.-Cochrane Corporation, 26 F. (2d) 815.

(B) Limitation of Claims. 167(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) There cannot be substantial variance between drawings and specifications, but specifications usually govern.-Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 26 F. (2d) 651, remanding for further findings (D. C.) 17 F. (2d) 815.

167(2) (U.S.D.C.La.) Patentees will not be permitted to extend claim restricting patent to certain type by words "substantially as and for the purpose described."-Henderson Welch Dry Kiln Co., 26 F. (2d) 810.

V.

167(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Claims of patent must be determined in light of specifications. -Bassick Mfg. Co. v. C. P. Rogers & Co., 26 F. (2d) 724.

168(2) (U.S.D.C.Md.) Patentee, acquiescing in rejection of broad claim, cannot thereafter insist that limitations of other narrower claims should be ignored.-Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Baltimore Truck Tire Service Corporation, 26 F. (2d), 686.

168 (25%) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Patentee, who surrendered claim for broad construction to obtain patent, is estopped to assert broad construction in infringement suit.-Lyons v. Baer & Wilde Co., 26 F. (2d) 599.

178 (Ú.S.D.C.La.) Combination patent, covering old elements and making but slight advance in art, held entitled to very narrow range of equivalents.-Henderson v. Welch Dry Kiln Co., 26 F. (2d) 810.

X. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CON-
TRACTS.

(A) Rights of Patentees in General. 191 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Patentee is entitled to all uses to which invention may be put, though not aware of particular use when he secures patent.-Larson v. Crowther, 26 F. (2d) 780.

(C) Licenses and Contracts.

210 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Sale of barge equipped with pumping equipment by patentee held not to include license to use patent for pumping apparatus for cleaning tanks of oil-burning ships. Salvage Process Co. v. James Shewan & Sons, 26 F. (2d) 258.

211(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Agreement of licensee not to contest patent is not construed to extend beyond termination of license, unless intent is clear.-Eskimo Pie Corporation v. National Ice Cream Co., 26 F. (2d) 901, affirming order (D. C.) 20 F. (2d) 1003.

XII. INFRINGEMENT.

(A) What Constitutes Infringement. 226 (U.S.D.C.La.) Defendant's device may be within language of claim, and not be infringement.-Henderson v. Welch Dry Kiln Co., 26 F. (2d) 810.

226 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) In determining infringement, court considers whether alleged infringing device performs substantially identical functions as patented device, in substantially same way, to obtain same result.-Hiler Audio Corporation v. General Radio Co., 26 F. (2d) 475.

result through other apparatus is not infringer. -Elliott Co. v. H. S. B. W.-Cochrane Corporation, 26 F. (2d) 815.

That patentee obtained patent on apparatus producing result which was advance in art did not give monopoly in every apparatus or means for producing same result.-Id.

243 (1) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Separation of integral elements of device does not avoid infringement, if function and operation are substantially identical with prior patented device.-Hiler Audio Corporation v. General Radio Co., 26 F. (2d) 475.

243(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Combination of fringement, if function of two elements is perelements of claim of patent does not avoid inTrap Co., 26 F. (2d) 312. formed in identical manner.-Gibbs v. Triumph

terial parts of patented combination does not 246 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Device omitting mainfringe.-Bassick Mfg. Co. v. C. P. Rogers & Co., 26 F. (2d) 724.

fringement of patent generally presupposes ac259(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Contributory intual infringement.-Cincinnati Galvanizing Co. v. Marquette Tool & Mfg. Co., 26 F. (2d) 593. 259(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Letting of contracts infringing apparatus held not to constitute confor cleaning of ships by defendant to firm using tributory infringement.-Salvage Process Co. v. James Shewan & Sons, 26 F.(2d) 258.

261 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Failure of plaintiff or predecessors to bring action for infringement of patent for pumping apparatus for cleaning tanks of oil-burning ships, where defendants ceased using barge in connection with barge having pumping equipment at patentee's request, did not constitute acquiescence.-Salvage Process Co. v. James Shewan & Sons, 26 F. (2d) 258.

(C) Suits in Equity.

283(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Patent cannot be attacked for fraud on patent officials in infringement suit between private parties.-Carson Inv. 651, remanding for further findings (D. C.) 17 Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 26 F. (2d) F. (2d) 815.

289(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Failure of plaintiff or predecessors to bring action for infringement of patent for pumping apparatus for cleaning tanks of oil-burning ships, where debarge having pumping equipment at patentee's fendants ceased using barge in connection with request, did not constitute laches.-Salvage Process Co. v. James Shewan & Sons, 26 F. (2d) 258.

290 (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Patentee, making assignment to trustee, but retaining beneficial interest, held proper party plaintiff in infringement suit.-Carson Inv. Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 26 F. (2d) 651, remanding for further findings (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 815.

292 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Plaintiff, on disclosing dates of invention of patent sued on, held entitled to require answers to interrogatories concerning prior devices relied on by defendants.Sachs v. Hartford Electric Supply Co., 26 F. (2d) 120.

303 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Whether patent infringement suit is barred by delay in entering disclaimer of invalid claims is question of fact

722; claims 14 and 15, held not in-
fringed (D. C. N. Y.) 26 F. (2d)
724.

1,322,650. Fastener, claims 4, 5, 13 and 20,
held valid and infringed (D. C. N.
Y.) 26 F. (2d) 264.
1,333,017. Animal trap, claim 10, held valid and
infringed (C. C. A. N. Y.) 26 F.
(2d) 312.

1,364,304. Concentration of minerals by flota-
tion, claims 1-4, held invalid, but
if valid, not infringed (D. C.
Mont.) 26 F. (2d) 736.
1,405,173. Pumping apparatus, claim 1, held
valid and infringed (D. C. N. Y.)
26 F. (2d) 258.

1,422,202. Improvements in dry kilns for dry-
ing lumber, held not infringed (D.
C. La.) 26 F. (2d) 810.

1,454,565. Combined desk and seat, claim 4,
held invalid and infringed (C. C.
A. Ill.) 26 F. (2d) 464.
1,457,153. Relating to removing oxygen from
water, claims 4-9, and 11-13, held
not infringed (D. C. Pa.) 26 F.
(2d) 815.

1,458,286. Animal trap, claim 4, held valid and
infringed (C. C. A. N. Y.) 26 F.
(2d) 312.

1,458,920. Platform scale for weighing vehicles
on road, claim 5, held invalid for
want of invention; claim 2 and 15,
held not infringed (D. C. Md.) 26
F. (2d) 686.

1,475,980. Grease gun fittings and nipples, held
valid and infringed (D. C. N. Y.)
26 F.(2d) 722; claims 2, 3 and 5,
held not infringed (D. C. N. Y.) 26
F. (2d) 724.

1,480,482. Pumping apparatus, claim 1, 2, 3
and 6, held not infringed (D. C. N.
Y.) 26 F. (2d) 258.

1,486,162. Gauge cocks, held entitled only to
narrow range of equivalents, and
not infringed (C. C. A. Okl.) 26 F.
(2d) 66.

1,486,746. Power press, held not infringed (C.
C. A. Ill.) 26 F.(2d) 593.
1,497,491. Removal of oxygen from hot water,
held not infringed (D. C. Pa.) 26
F. (2d) 815.

1,545,829. Revoluble mounting of wheel on sta-
tionary axle, held invalid for lack
of invention (C. C. A. Ind.) 26 F.
(2d) 362.
1,554,076. Pumping apparatus, claim 3, held not
infringed (D. C. N. Y.) 26 F.(2d)
258.

1,589,692. Improving choke coil amplification
unit on radio signal amplifying cir-
cuits, held infringed and valid (D.
C. Mass.) 26 F. (2d) 475.
1,612,788. Improved tire flap, held lacking in
novelty and invention (C. C. A.
Wis.) 26 F. (2d) 159.

REISSUED.

15,782. Automobile parking light, claims 3, 4,
5 and 6, held valid and infringed (C.
C. A. Md.) 26 F.(2d) 898.
15,866. Removing oxygen from water held in-
valid (D. C. Pa.) 26 F. (2d) 815.

PENALTIES.

II. ACTIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS.

16 (U.S.D.C.La.) Suits for penalties,
though contemplating punishment for offenses,
are not "criminal prosecutions."-U. S. v. La
Franca, 26 F. (2d) 706.

PLEADING.

1. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GEN-
ERAL.

part
34(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Striking
of
suit of trustee in bankruptcy regarding policies
delivered for creditors held error, resolving
doubts in pleader's favor.-Levy v. Board of
Trade of San Francisco, 26 F. (2d) 591.

VIII. PROFERT, OYER. AND EXHIBITS.

310 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Under Arkansas laws,
instrument relied on in action not founded
thereon may be attached to complaint and used
to explain, but not to supply, deny, or con-
trol allegations thereof (Crawford & Moses'
Dig. Ark. §§ 1222, 1223).-Bosler v. U. S., 26
F.(2d) 4.

IX. BILL OF PARTICULARS AND COPY OF
ACCOUNT.

318(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Bill of particulars
demanding particulars far beyond any to which
plaintiff could be entitled, will be denied, in
exercise of discretion.-Rockwood Co. v. North-
western Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 26 F. (2d) 824.

PLEDGES.

11 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Pledge is invalid unless
property is delivered to pledgee.-Barnsdall
State Bank v. Dykes, 26 F. (2d) 696.

POISONS.

2 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Statute making it un-
lawful to sell drugs, except on buyer's written
order on prescribed form, held applicable to all
persons (Anti-Narcotic Act, § 2 [26 USCA §
696]).-Bowdry v. U. S., 26 F. (2d) 791.

Statute making it unlawful to sell drugs, ex-
cept on buyer's written order on prescribed
form, held constitutional (Anti-Narcotic Act, § 2
[26 USCA § 696]).-Id.

4 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Law requiring registra-
tion of dealers in narcotics held inapplicable to
one dispensing narcotics from unstamped pack-
ages (Harrison Act, § 1 [26 USCA § 211]).—
Russell v. U. S., 26 F. (2d) 363.

phate hydrochloride held insufficient to sustain
9 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Proof of sale of sul-
conviction for sale of morphine (Harrison An-
ti-Narcotic Act, § 1 [26 USCA § 692]).—Cole-
man v. U. S., 26 F. (2d) 870.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence held to war-
rant conviction for selling morphine without
having registered as dealers (Harrison Narcotic
Act [26 USCA §§ 211, 691-707]).-Russell v.
U. S., 26 F. (2d) 65.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) In absence of evidence
that he was dealer was not sustained by proofs
that defendant was morphine dealer, charge
(Anti-Narcotic Act [26 USCA §§ 211, 691,
707]).-Bowdry v. U. S., 26 F.(2d) 791.

Charge that morphine involved was not
stamped held insufficient, as charge that de-
fendant dispensed it in or from original stamped
package (Anti-Narcotic Act, § 2 [26 USCA §
696]).—Id.