Patents and how to obtain them. Together with a summary of patent law

MAIN

mmm ^LIBRARIES

COSMfc, 16011

r-NRLF

I

-133

PATENTS /V?'

AND

HOW TO OBTAIN THEM

TOGETHER WITH

A SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW

BY
FRANCIS M. WEIGHT

**

Attorney at Law and Registered Solicitor of United States
and Foreign Patents

Formerly U. S. Patent Office Examiner

Cop,nghted, 1898, by Francis M. Wright

Copyrighted, 1900, by Francis M. Wright

Copyrighted, 1906, by Francis M. Wright

Cop/lighted, 1909, by Francis M. Wright

Copyrighted, 1913, by Francis M. Wright
EIGHTH EDITION

OFFICE
Rooms 933-937 Monadnock Bldg., Market St., near Third St

San Francisco, Cal.
Telephone, Kearny 2726

BRANCH OFFICE
Rooms 56-61, 918 F Street N. W., Washington, D. C.

Mr. Francis M. Wright is a graduate of the University
of Oxford, England, where he obtained a double First
Class in Mathematical Honors. He was afterwards ap-
pointed a Professor in the Institute of Technology of
the City of London.

In 1891 he entered the U. S. Patent Office as Assistant
Examiner, and had charge of important classes of inven-
tions in the Divisions of Metal Working and Metallurgy.
After having familiarized himself with the routine of the
Patent Office, and acquired a thorough knowledge of Pat-
ent Law and Practice, he entered upon the profession of
Solicitor of Patents at Washington, D. C., and practiced
successfully for several years in that city, where he still
retains a branch office.

Mr. Wright has repeatedly and successfully prosecuted
cases before every division and every tribunal of the Pat-
ent Office, and is accurately acquainted with every detail
of its working.

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM

The Foundation of the Patent Laws

of the United States is found in Article I, Sec-
tion 8, of the Constitution, which provides that
Congress shall have power to promote the prog-
ress of science and useful arts by securing for
limited times to inventors the exclusive right to
their respective discoveries.

The Principal Enactment of Congress

in accordance with this provision of the Constitu-
tion is Section 4886 of the U. S. Revised Statutes,
which, as now amended, is as follows:

Any person who has invented or discovered any
new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or com-
position of matter, or any new and useful improve-
ments thereof, not known or used by others in this
country before his invention or discovery thereof,
and not patented or described in any printed pub-
lication in this or any foreign country before his
invention or discovery thereof or more than two
years prior to his application, and not patented in
a country foreign to the United States on an ap-
plication filed more than twelve months before
his application, and not in public use or on sale in
this country for more than two years prior to his
application, may, upon payment of the fees re-
quired by law, and other due proceedings had, ob-
tain a patent therefor.

The Subjects of Patents

are therefore seen to be, (1) an art, (2) a ma:
chine, (3) a manufacture, (4) a composition of
matter, or (5) any new and useful improvement
of these. A sixth class comprises Design patents,

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

which, by authority of a separate Section are
granted for a term of 3% years, 7 years, or 14
years, as may be desired, for any new design,
shape or pattern of any article of manufacture.

An Art

(method, or process), is a mode of treatment of
certain materials to produce a given result. A
good example of a patentable art was Goodyear's
process of vulcanizing rubber, which consisted in
mixing crude India rubber with sulphur and
then subjecting the mixture to a high degree of
heat. In order to be patentable, the act, or series
of acts, constituting the art or process in ques-
tion must be capable of being conceived or imag-
ined apart from any special form of machine em-
ployed for performing such act or acts. In Corn-
ing v. Burden, it was held that a process of con-
verting puddler's balls into blooms, by continuous
pressure and rotation of the balls between con-
verging surfaces, was not a patentable process, as
it was merely the operation of the machine, merely
the use of certain mechanism.

A Principle

or law of nature, cannot be patented. Thus Morse's
eighth claim was declared invalid by the U. S. Su-
preme Court, as it was substantially a claim for
the use of the electric current for making signs
at a distance. A claim for the manner or method
by which the electric current was so employed,
however broad, would have been valid.

A Machine
is a combination of moving mechanical parts

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 7

adapted to receive motion, and to apply it to the
production of some mechanical result. A machine
is patentably new when its principle of operation is
new, and two machines are substantially the same
when their principles of operation are the same.

•

A Manufacture

is a very comprehensive title and includes every
article devised by man, not a machine, a compo-
sition of matter, or a design.

A Composition of Matter

includes all compositions of two or more sub-
stances, either mechanically or chemically mixed,
either fluid or solid.

Improvements

on all the above are also patentable. A patent on
an improvement may be obtained whether the
matter improved upon has been patented or not,
and though there may be an unexpired patent
therefor. But a patent on an improvement on a
patented device does not confer on the improver
a right to use the original device. Nor can the
patentee of the original device use the patented
improvement without the consent of the improver.
Each has the monopoly of his own invention.

Designs

differ from the foregoing subjects of mechanical
patents in that they have reference to appearance
only. The object of patents for designs is to en-
courage the arts of decoration.
A design is sufficiently novel to be patentable,

8 PATENTS AXD HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

if it can be distinguished from prior designs by
an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives.

Under the ruling of Commissioner Butterworth,
in ex parte Traitel, the color of a design or the
material of whicn it is made are of no importance
in distinguishing the design, but the design relates
solely to form and configuration.

The Products of Invention

alone are patentable. Not all improvement is pat-
entable, but only such as is produced by the exer-
cise of the inventive faculties.

It is not invention to make an improvement
which any skilled mechanic would produce when-
ever required.

It is not invention to produce an article which
differs from some older thing- only in excellence
of workmanship; or, in general, to substitute
superior for inferior materials, as, for instance,
to substitute clay door knobs for wooden and
metallic ones. — Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. It is not
invention to enlarge a machine so that it will do
heavier work than before. Thus, it being old to
cut lath with a small circular saw, a patent for a
circular saw for cutting logs was declared void. —
Phillips v. Page.

It is not invention to change the degree of a
thing; thus, pulverized glue was declared not a
patentable improvement on flake glue. — Glue Co.
v. Upton.

To collect in one article a number of good fea-
tures, scattered through sundry prior devices,
although constituting an article much superior
to any before made, is not invention. — Hailer v.
Van Wormer. For the same reason, in Recken-

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 9

dorfer v. Faber, it was held that it did not amount
to invention to unite a piece of soft rubber to the
end of a lead pencil, and this article was declared
not patentable.

It is not invention to omit a part of a device,
unless the remaining parts thereby act in a dif-
ferent way. It is not invention to use an old thing
for a new purpose; if, however, a change of con-
struction is made at the same time with the
change of use, there may be invention.

In doubtful cases the rule in Smith v. The Den-
tal Vulcanite Co. may be applied, namely: The
fact of a device having gone into general use and
having displaced other devices which had previ-
ously been employed for analogous purposes will
generally establish that the device involves a pat-
entable invention.

Novelty

is a pre-requisite of patentability. The invention
must be "new," not known or used by others in
this country, and not patented or described in any
printed publication in this or any foreign country,
before the applicant's invention or discover}
thereof.

An invention may be patentably novel, although
known and used, prior to the act of invention, by
persons in foreign countries, provided that it was
not, in such foreign countries, described in a
printed publication. A published drawing alone
would be a sufficient description to anticipate an
invention. Such description, however, must be
sufficiently full to enable a person, skilled in the
art to which the invention belongs, to practice
the invention.

Novelty is not negatived by the existence of

10 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

another person's prior unpublished drawings of
the invention, or of a model, or of an abandoned
application therefor.

A thing may be novel, even though every part
of it is old, provided these old parts co-act with
each other, and produce by their union a result
not performed by each part separately. But it
they do not do this the assemblage is not patent-
able.

The Date of Invention

may often be a matter of great importance. An
invention dates from the completion of a model
or drawing clearly showing the invention or from
the complete disclosure of the invention to other
parties.

A Patent Once Granted

if attacked upon the ground of the existence of
the device prior to the patentee's invention, will
only be overthrown upon evidence establishing the
alleged existence beyond a doubt.

Utility

is a necessary quality of a patentable invention.
The device must be capable of producing a result,
and the result must be a useful one.

If an application is made for a patent on a
machine, the drawing or description of which
shows that the machine will not work as intended,
the invention will be rejected for lack of utility,
for "imperativeness." An application for a "per-
petual motion" machine will always be rejected
for this reason, and the applicant will be required
to provide a working model to substantiate his
claim.

Also the result must be a useful one. A device,

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 11

the function of which is necessarily injurious to
morals, or health, or public order, cannot be pat-
ented. But a device which can be used in a bene-
ficial manner, although it can also be used in a
harmful manner, is patentable.

The very smallest amount of utility is sufficient
to support a patent.

Public Use

of the invention for more than two years prior to
filing the application will be a bar to a patent for
the invention. By public use is meant any use of
the invention by other persons generally, with or
without the consent of the inventor. If an in-
ventor permits the invention to be used by the
public for this length of time without applying for
a patent, he is presumed to have waived or aban-
doned his right to a monopoly therein. But an
experimental use, for the purpose of testing the
qualities of the invention, is not public use. In
Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., it was held that the
use of an improved street pavement on a public
highway for more than two years, made to test
its utility, was not a public use within the mean-
ing of the Statute.

The act of putting the invention on sale for
more than two years prior to the application will
also bar a patent. A single sale, of a single arti-
cle, to a single person, is sufficient, as is also the
mere offering or exposing for sale. A sale "to see
if it will sell," more than two years before filing
the application, is abandonment, but a sale "on
trial" for the purpose of testing the invention, is
not abandonment.

12 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

Abandonment

of an invention may also occur in other ways than
by two years' public use or sale, as by an express
declaration of abandonment, or by lack of dili-
gence of the inventor in securing his rights, which
negligence may be evidenced by long delay in
filing the application. But such long delay may
be excused by extreme poverty, mental or physi-
cal, disorder, or other prevailing cause.

Prior Foreign Patents.

Under the present law, the inventor who has
obtained a foreign patent, will not thereby be
prevented from obtaining a U. S. patent for the
same invention, provided he files his application
within twelve months after the filing of the appli-
cation for the foreign patent. The term of the
U. S. patent is now no longer limited by the term
of a foreign patent previously granted.

An Application for a Patent

comprises (1) a petition, (2) a specification, (3)
an oath, (4) payment of fifteen dollars, (5) one
or more sheets of drawings, when the nature of
the case admits of drawings.

Only in complicated machines, the construction
of which cannot well be understood from the
drawings, are models now called for. Specimens
of compositions are occasionally required to be
filed. Unless called for, models or specimens
should not be filed with the application; but it
sometimes happens that models or specimens,
although not absolutely required by the Examiner,
may be of service in the prosecution of the case
to show the merit of the invention. If so, they
may, with the permission of the Examiner, be

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 13

filed as an exhibit, and will then be returned to
the applicant on the determination of the applica-
tion.

The Petition

must be signed by the actual inventor; it must be
addressed to the Commissioner of Patents, state
the name and residence of the applicant, desig-
nate by title the invention sought to be patented,
and contain a reference to the specification for a
full disclosure of the invention.

The Specification

compiises seven parts: (1) The preamble, giving
the name and address of the applicant, the title
of the invention, and the name of any foreign
country in which the invention has been patented,
and the details thereof; (2) a general statement
of the nature and object of the invention; (3) a
brief description of the several figures of the
drawings, showing what each figure thereof repre-
sents; (4) a detailed description of the invention,
explaining fully its construction, and mode of
operation; (5) the claim or claims; (6) the signa-
ture of the inventor; (7) the signatures of two
witnesses.

The Detailed Description must be sufficiently
full, clear, concise and exact, to enable any per-
son skilled in the art or science to which it apper-
tains, or with which it is most nearly connected,
to make and use the invention, if it is a machine
or manufacture, or to compound the invention, if
it is a composition of matter, or to perform the
invention, if it is a process. If the description
does not do this, the patent, if granted, will be

14 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

void. The reason for this is obvious from the
nature of a patent.

A Patent is a Contract between the inventor
and the public, by which the inventor, in consid-
eration that the exclusive use of his invention is
secured to him for a limited period of time, con-
fers upon the public full knowledge of the inven-
tion, so that it shall be able to use the invention af-
ter the expiration of that period. Now, if the inven-
tor does not so place the invention fully within
the knowledge of the public, it is evident that he
has not performed his part in the contract, and
his patent is void for lack of consideration.

Theoretical Principles, however, underlying a
process or other invention, need not be stated,
as they are not necessary to enable the public
to practise the invention. They may not even be
understood by the inventor himself. Yet in the
prosecution of an application for a novel process,
presenting unexpected results, it may often be
very desirable to be able to propound a theory of
operation accounting for the observed results,
should the Examiner be skeptical as to the opera-
tiveness of the process claimed to be novel.

No Argument as to the merits of the inven-
tion should be inserted in the description, except
such as is absolutely necessary to set forth the
utility of the invention. In particular, it is not
permitted to disparage competing inventions in
specific terms.

Persons Skilled in the Art are the class to
whom the description must be intelligible. A
description of a loom must be intelligible to
weavers, of a dynamo to electric engineers, etc.

A False Suggestion is Fatal. The inventor is

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 15

bound to keep faith with the public. If for the
purpose of misleading them, he states less than
the whole truth, or asserts that things are neces-
sary to produce the desired effect when he knows
that they are not so, the patent will be void.
Such wilful fraud is, however, never presumed,
but must be established by direct or circumstan-
tial evidence.

The Claim

is the life of the patent, and by it the letters
patent must stand or fall. The thing patented is
the thing claimed; the Courts will not go into
the history of the art to determine what the
patentee really invented and might have claimed;
and though he may have actually invented much
more than he has claimed, his monopoly will only
be that which he has claimed.

A claim must correspond with the description;
must not be functional, that is, cover a mere result,
instead of covering the means by which the result
is attained; must not be alternative, that is, must
not cover two different constructions by language
applied separately to each; and claims must not
be multiplied, so as to define the invention by a
number of claims, which all mean the same thing.

Genus and Species claims may be presented on
the same invention, the generic claim defining
the invention with sufficient breadth to include
all of a family or group having the essential char-
acteristics of the invention claimed, while specific
claims cover only those constructions specifically
referred to in the claim. But only one species
of any patentable construction or combination
may be claimed in a single application, although

16 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

it may be claimed both specifically and broadly.
Different inventions may be claimed in the same
application, when they are mutually dependent
and contribute to a single result.

The Oath.

The applicant must make oath that he verily
believes himself to be the first inventor of the
invention for which he solicits a patent, as well
as to the fulfillment of the other conditions of Sec.
4886, Rev. Stat.

The Drawing

must be prepared with great care, as the require-
ments of the Patent Office are very exacting. The
drawing must show every feature referred to in
the specification as forming a part of the inven-
tion; on the other hand, when a modification of
the invention is not covered by any claim, it must
not appear on the drawing.

Deceased Inventor.

In case of the death of the inventor before the
application is filed, the application may be made
by his legal representatives.

Examination of the Application.

The application, having been filed in the Pat-
ent Office, complete in all its five parts, is given
the date of filing and a serial number, the present
series having been begun in 1900. Acknowledg-
ment of the filing is mailed to the applicant or
his attorney, and the application is sent to some
one of 40 examining divisions, according to the
subject matter of the invention. Here it must
await its turn before undergoing examination, the

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 17

applications in each division being taken up for
action in the order of filing, which may be in from
one to ten months.

The Official Search.

When the application is reached, the Exam-
iner will proceed to make a search among prior
patents, and, if necessary, books and publications,
to determine whether the claims presented should
be allowed. For this purpose, the prior United
States and foreign patents, over 2,000,000 in num-
ber, are extensively classified and are distributed
among the different divisions.

If the Examiner finds that any claim of the <
application should be rejected, the applicant will
be notified of such rejection and of the reasons
therefor, and such information will be given as
may be useful in judging of the propriety of prose-
cuting the application or amending the claim.

Amendments and Actions by Applicants.

The applicant has the right to amend the speci-
fication either before or after the first rejection
or action; and he may amend as often as the
Examiner presents new reasons for rejection.
Should the applicant consider that the rejection
by the Examiner is erroneous, he will request a
reconsideration of his action, pointing out the
supposed error therein, and the patentable novelty
of the claim or claims rejected. If the applicant
prefers this request for a reconsideration without
substantially amending his claim, and the Exam-
iner repeats his objection on the same ground as
before, and without advancing new reasons for
his rejection, the second rejection is final, and the
applicant's remedy is by appeal.

18 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

At any time before final rejection, however, the
applicant may amend his claim or claims so re-
jected, and will then be entitled to consideration
of the same, and a first rejection thereof. A final
rejection will only be given when a request
for reconsideration is made without an amend-
ment.

New Matter Inadmissible.

An applicant is not permitted to introduce into
the specification or drawing, when once filed, any
new matter, that is, matter which was not shown
in either the drawing or the specification as origi-
nally filed. And this is the case, even although
the matter sought to be inserted formed a part of
his original invention, and was omitted from his
application by inadvertence. When new matter
is sought to be introduced, it can only be done by
filing a new application.

Progress of the Case.

After each amendment by the applicant, or
request for reconsideration, the case will await
its turn with other cases in like condition before
the same Examiner. This period will be from one
to ten weeks; on an average about four weeks.
Should the amendment present a new feature, or
restrict the claims, the Examiner will, if neces-
sary, make a further search, and either allow or
reject the amended claims. This process of
amendment, or request for reconsideration, by
the applicant, and rejection or allowance by the
Examiner, will be continued until either all the
claims are allowed, or some are allowed and some
finally rejected, or all are finally rejected. When
claims are finally rejected which the applicant's

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 19

attorney deems to be allowable (which, however,
happens infrequently), either the Examiner or the
attorney holds an erroneous opinion, and this
question is a proper subject for an appeal.

Appeals.

Appeal to the Board of Examiners-in-Chief may
be taken from an action of the Examiner finally
rejecting one or more claims. The Government
fee for this appeal is $10. This Board of Appeal
consists of three members, whose office it is thus
to revise and control adverse judgments of the
Examiners when brought up to them on appeal.
From an adverse decision of the Examiners-in-
Chief an appeal may be taken to the Commissioner
in person (appeal fee $20), and from the Commis-
sioner an appeal may be taken to the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia, whose de-
cision is final.

Unless the applicant decides to appeal on the
finally rejected claims, and in case he appeals
and the rejection is sustained on appeal, he will
be required to cancel the rejected claims before
the application can be passed on the allowed
claims.

Notice of Allowance will then be mailed to
him, and then it will only be necessary to pay
the final Government fee of $20. This may be
paid any time within six months after notice of
allowance, thus giving him time to make appli-
cation for foreign patents, if he so desires.

Abandoned Applications.

All applications must receive proper action by
the applicant within one year after action thereon

20 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

by the Patent Office, otherwise the application will
be held to have been abandoned.

Interferences.

An interference is a proceeding instituted by
the Patent Office to determine which of two
parties, claiming the same patentable invention,
is the real inventor thereof. The fact that one
of the parties has already obtained a patent will
not prevent an interference, for, although the
Commissioner has no power to cancel or revoke
a patent, he may grant another patent for the
same invention to a person who proves to be the
prior inventor.

In the determination of an interference, it is
not always the first inventor to whom the award
of priority is given, but it is the party who can
prove that he was the first inventor. Inventors
should remember this fact, and should, as soon
as possible after their conception of the invention,
make sketches of the same, show them to friends
whom they can trust, and obtain the signatures
of such persons, with the date. They will thus
be able to establish the conception of the inven-
tion at an early date.

Reduction to Practice.

There are two main epochs in the production
of an invention. The first is the conception of
the invention in the mind of the inventor; the
second is the actual embodiment of the invention.
The latter is called Reduction to Practice. Actual
reduction to practice consists in the construction
of the actual thing invented, of dimensions suit-
able for practical use, and, in case of any doubt
of the practical operativeness of the device, it
must have been tried sufficiently to establish its

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 21

practicability. A model, no matter how complete
in detail, is not sufficient.

Constructive Reduction to Practice,

An invention will, however, be held to be
completed by the filing in the Patent Office of an
application clearly disclosing the invention and
claiming the same. This is called a Constructive
Reduction to Practice, and is a completion of the
invention just as much as would be the embodi-
ment of the invention in an actual reduction.

Priority of Invention.

Where there are two independent inventors, the
rule is that the first to conceive the invention is
considered to be the first inventor, if he is reason-
ably diligent in reducing to practice. But if he
is not diligent, and the later to conceive reduces
to practice first, then the latter is the first in-
ventor.

Re-Issues.

A patent, after issue, may be found to be defec-
tive, most commonly by reason of the claims not
being broad enough to adequately cover the actual
invention. The remedy for this is by a surrender
of the original patent and a re-issue of the same
with broader claims.

Such re-issue should be applied for as soon as
possible after the discovery of the defects sought
to be remedied. In case of delay, and if other
rights have arisen in the meantime, the re-issue
will be refused. The Government, fee for a re-
issue is $30.

On the Choice of an Attorney.
Too much care cannot be exercised in the selec-

22 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

tion of an attorney to prepare and prosecute an
application for a Patent.

If the invention is sufficiently valuable to pat-
ent at all, a good patent should be procured,
one which will afford thorough and complete pro-
tection. Otherwise, the inventor will find, when
he attempts to sustain his monopoly, that not
only has the money spent in procuring the patent
been wasted, but the invention itself is lost. It is
true that the invention may sometimes be saved
by a re-issue of the patent, but in many instances
this cannot be done, and in any case the pecuniary
loss is considerable.

The procurement of sufficiently broad claims is
the especial province of the attorney. It is no
part of the duty of the Patent Office to see that
the applicant obtains claims as broad as the
invention merits. Its duty is to the public in
general, to see that the inventor is not granted
claims broader than are warranted. A conscien-
tious attorney has often the greatest difficulty and
labor in obtaining the allowance of sufficiently
broad claims.

Inventors who have had experience in the sale
of patents for their inventions know full well the
importance of the character of the claims which
they have obtained. But inventors who have not
had such experience are generally in ignorance
on this point. They imagine that if they get A
PATENT that is enough. This is not so.

The value of a patent depends entirely on the
value of the claims obtained. Many patents, ob-
tained by careless or incompetent attorneys, con-
tain claims so worthless that it would be ridicu-
lous to even attempt upon such patents to enjoin
the use of the invention supposed to be protected

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 23

by the patent. And even if the patent has been
obtained by a reputable attorney, it is only by the
employment of care, skill, and experience that the
invention is properly protected.

It is generally better for the inventor to em-
ploy an attorney whom he can visit personally,
if necessary. The Patent Agencies at Washing-
ton, D. C., New York and Philadelphia, who adver-
tise so extensively in newspapers throughout the
entire country, are many of them not safely to be
trusted. A very considerable portion of the fee
paid by the inventor to these agencies goes for
advertising, and the remainder would not be a
sufficient compensation for good work put upon
the case by a man of ability and experience.

The work is, as a matter of fact, generally done
by underpaid clerks, who are merely learning
their profession, and who do not know how to
obtain a good patent, even if they were permitted
to spend the time on each case necessary to do so.

The sole object is to push the case through as
fast as possible, and to get a patent, any kind, so
long as it is a patent. Thus it is that so many
patents are worthless, and the unfortunate pat-
entee blames the Patent System for giving him a
patent that does not protect him. It is not the
system that is at fault, but his own imprudence
or inexperience in the appointment of an attor-
ney.

Some of these agencies take advantage of this
ignorance on the part of the inventor by offering
the alluring inducement, "No patent, no pay."
The inventor gets a patent, that is, he gets some
sheets of paper, a blue ribbon, and a seal, but
does he get proper protection for his invention?
He is decidedly fortunate if he does.

24 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

A personal visit to the attorney is often desir-
able in many ways. The local attorney can often
assist the inventor in working out the details of
the invention, and can aid the inventor in other
ways that will readily suggest themselves, and
that an attorney at a distance could not so well
do. Many serious errors are liable to occur when
the nature of the invention is communicated by
correspondence. A feature of the invention may
be entirely overlooked, or more importance, or
less, may be attached to it by the attorney than
in reality belongs to it.

A skilled and experienced Patent Attorney can
conduct the case as well at a distance as he can
at Washington, D. C. He understands the reasons
for the Examiner's actions, without the necessity
of interviewing the Examiner, and can make the
appropriate amendment or reply by letter.

In the beginning of this pamphlet will be found
a brief statement of the author's qualifications as
a Solicitor of Patents. These qualifications are
not excelled on this coast.

To have been an Examiner in the Patent Of-
fice is a decided advantage to a practising Patent
Attorney. It enables him to realize the precise
mental attitude taken by an Examiner in his
treatment of any case, to see the reasonableness
of the Examiner's action, or where the Exam-
iner has failed to perceive the merit of the in-
vention, and to prosecute the case accordingly
with the least possible friction, and with the
best results in securing a good patent.

This advantage has in my case been enhanced
by the experience gained as a Patent Attorney
at the National Capital, which has brought me

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 25

into personal contact with all the officials of the
Patent Office, and thoroughly familiarized me
with its entire routine.

Rejected Cases.

Many valuable inventions are buried among
the rejected applications in the Patent Office, for
which patents might be obtained. I have been
remarkably successful in procuring patents for
such inventions, which had been given up as hope-
less by other attorneys.

The Cost of a Patent.

The Government fees on an application for a
patent are $35.00. Of this sum, however, only
$15.00 is payable on filing the application, the re-
maining $20.00 being payable when the applica-
tion is allowed by the Patent Office, or at any
time within six months after such notice of allow-
ance. When the final Government fee of $20.00
has been paid, the patent will issue about four
weeks afterwards. Should the applicant fail to
pay the final Government fee of $20.00 within the
six months allowed him, he is permitted to re-
new the application by payment of a renewal
fee of $15.00, and the application will be again
examined, and, when allowed, the final fee of
$20.00 must be paid before the patent issues.
But such renewal of the application must be made
within two years after the notice of allowance
of the original application.

My fee for preparing and prosecuting the ap-
plication is, in ordinary cases, involving one

26 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

sheet of drawing, $45.00, including the drawing,
of which sum $35.00 is payable before prepar-
ing the application for filing, and $10.00 on re-
ceipt of the first official action. Thus the total
cost of filing an ordinary application is $50.00, the
total cost of obtaining the patent being $80.00. In
more complicated cases the attorney's fee and cost
of drawings are proportionately greater.

For a Re-issue application, my charge, and the
draftsman's fee, are generally the same as for an
ordinary patent, but the Government fee is only
$30.00, making the total cost $75.00. The whole of
the Government fee for a Re-issue is, however,
payable on filing the application.

For a Design Patent, my charge is $25.00, in-
cluding drawings. The Government fee is $10.00
for a 3% year patent, $15.00 for a 7 year patent,
and $30.00 for a 14 year patent.

The above fee for a patent is the same as
the standard price with the best class of agents
in Washington, D. C., and will be found to be
reasonable for the amount and character of the
work done. An inventor may receive offers to
procure him a patent for a smaller sum, but he
should remember that a "paper" patent is dear
at any price. To obtain a patent that is one
only in name, with narrow claims that do not
adequately cover the invention, requires com-
paratively little labor or skill, and for such a
patent a small fee is a proper compensation. But
to obtain a good patent, that will withstand the
assaults of infringers and protect the inventor,
requires the expenditure of time, hard work,
skill, and experience, and should be proportionate-
ly remunerated. A good patent at a fair price
will be found to be infinitely cheaper in the end.

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 27

Preliminary Examinations.

In many cases it is advisable to have a pre-
liminary examination made, before applying for
a patent, to ascertain whether the invention is
patentable. This search can. be made with the
greatest facility at the Patent Office in Washing-
ton, where the various patents are arranged for
inspection in classes and sub-classes. My charge
for having this search conducted by my corre-
spondent in Washington is $6.00. An immediate
investigation of the records can also be made
at greater expense at my office, where I have a
complete set of the Patent Office Gazettes and
Annual Indexes.

Trade- Marks.

Trade-marks are registered for thirty years,
renewable for thirty years more. They assist
manufacturers and merchants to retain the trade
to .which they are entitled on account of the
reputation or excellence of their goods.

The Government fee for registering a trade-
mark is $10.00; my fee is $10.00, exclusive of the
drawing.

Copyrights.

Copyrights are granted for twenty-eight years,
renewable for fourteen years more, to any citi-
zen of the United States or resident therein, who
shall be the author, inventor, or proprietor of any
book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composi-
tion, engraving, cut, print, photograph or negative
thereof, or of a painting, drawing, chromo, statue,
model, or design not intended for use as a trade-
mark or label.

My charge for procuring a copyright is $5.00,
which includes all Government fees.

28 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

Assignments.

An assignment, grant or conveyance of a patent
will be void as against any subsequent purchaser
or mortgagee for a valuable consideration without
notice, unless recorded in the Patent Office
within three months from the date thereof. My
charge for preparing and recording an assign-
ment is $5.00.

Abstract of Title.

An abstract of title is generally required when
the owner of the patent undertakes to sell, or
a party proposes to purchase, a patent. My usual
charge for an abstract of title, showing each re-
corded transfer, is $5.00. If a legal opinion as
to title is also required, my fee is determined
by the time and labor required in preparing it.

Validity and Scope of Patents.

• Parties contemplating investing money in pat-
ents should first have the validity and scope of
the claims of the said patents carefully exam-
ined, and a report made thereon. Many seem-
ingly broad claims of patents are really worth-
less and should not have been allowed, and in
other cases it may be found that the claims
must be so restricted by the prior art as not
to protect against slightly changed forms of the
invention.

To investigations and opinions of this kind I
give most careful attention, and my charge will
depend upon the complexity and importance of
the case, and the time required in making the
investigation and report.

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 29

Foreign Patents.

I have had extensive experience in procuring
foreign patents for inventions, and can obtain
the best patents in all countries at reasonable
rates.

The following table gives the term of a patent
in the principal foreign countries, and my charge
for procuring the same:

Term. Cost.

Canada 18 years $40

Great Britain 14 years 75

Germany .15 years 80

France 15 years 70

Belgium 20 years 40

Austria 15 years 75

Hungary 15 years 75

Switzerland 15 years 70

Italy 15 years 75

Spain 20 years 75

Portugal 15 years 70

Sweden 15 years 75

Norway 15 years 70

Denmark 15 years 75

Russia 15 years 100

Mexico 20 years 90

Japan 15 years 90

Australia 14 years 90

New Zealand 14 years 65

These prices are for ordinary cases.

The term above given is the maximum dura-
tion of the patent, but there are important par-
ticulars to be noted in this respect with regard
to the several countries. Also the price quoted
covers all the fees in ordinary cases for pro-
curing the patent, but does not include the fur-
ther payments and taxes which are necessary
in nearly all foreign countries to keep the pat-

30 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

ent alive for its maximum duration. Very few
patent agencies ever apprise their clients in their
circulars of these further payments. I think,
however, that it is proper that the intending
patentee should have the whole matter set plainly
before him.

Foreign Patents — Taxes.

In Canada there will be a further payment
of $20 at the end of the 6th year, and of a simi-
lar amount at the end of the 12th year. In Great
Britain there is an annual tax commencing at
the 4th year of $30 and increasing gradually to
$75 the 13th year. In Germany a similar annual
tax of $20 the 2d year to $190 the 15th year.
In France an annual tax of $23 each year com-
mencing with the 2nd. In Belgium an annual
tax of $8 the 2nd year, increasing to $50 the 20th
year. In Austria and Hungary an annual tax
of $25 the second year, increasing to $75 the 15th
year. Similar taxes are the rule with regard
to the remaining countries.

All the above charges include my fee for at-
tending to the payment of taxes, etc.

Foreign Patents — Working.

In most of the above countries it is necessary
that the invention be worked in the foreign coun-
try within a short time, varying from two to five
years, after the issue of the patent in that coun-
try, otherwise the patent becomes void. Also the
general rule is that any foreign patent will ex-
pire at the same time as a patent in any foreign
country for the same invention. Thus in general
the patents in all the countries will expire with
that, in the country having the shortest term.

PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM. 31

This was also the rule with the United States
patents prior to January 1, 1898.

Foreign Patents— Validity.

Valid patents cannot be obtained in Germany
and France if applied for after the issue of the
United States patent for the same invention; nor
in Great Britain if applied for after knowledge
of the invention therein, (and it is therefore not
safe to apply in Great Britain more than a week
later than the issue of the U. S. patent), nor in
Canada if applied for later than twelve months
after the issue of the U. S. patent. In the re-
maining countries mentioned the general rule is
that the application must be made before intro-
duction of the invention into the respective coun-
try.

International Union.

These rules are, however, subject to an excep-
tion. The International Union for the Protec-
tion of Industrial Property comprises the fol-
lowing countries: Australia, Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United States of America,
with some other smaller countries. Any person
filing an application for a patent in the United
States may, within twelve months from the date
of filing, file an application in any of the other
countries of the Union, and such later filing will
be given the date of filing of the U. S. application.
Thus, any acts, such as disclosure of the inten-
tion, which would render the patent invalid in
such foreign country, must have taken place, not

32 PATENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN THEM.

before the "actual" date of filing in the foreign
country, but before that of filing in the United
States Patent Office.

I have given careful attention to the selection
of foreign agents, and to all matters relating to
the procurement of foreign patents, and can
promise the best of service. At the same time
my rates will be found as reasonable as those of
other reputable attorneys.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

ABANDONMENT.

Recital of, but failure to claim, an element, in an appli-
cation as first filed, is no abandonment of such element,
when the same is subsequently claimed in the prosecution
of the application.

When an inventor delays applying for a patent "he as-
sumes the chances of the field being occupied by other
and more diligent designers, more prompt to supplement
their creative efforts by a reduction to practice."

APPLICATION.

It is not the result produced by the invention that is
the subject of the patent but only the means used to pro-
duce the result.

If a specification fails to make the invention fully known
and accessible to the public in any material respect, it is
fatally defective and the patent is void.

If the invention can not be made practically operative
without a further exercise of inventive skill, the patent
is void.

The description is sufficient if from it a skilled me-
chanic could construct the invention.

Every patent for a composition must identify the com-
position by certain characteristics or tests.

The drawing should show the entire thing described
in the specification as constituting the invention and not
merely a section thereof.

When a device as shown in the drawing is inopera-
tive and the defect is obviously a clerical one, the draw-
ing may be amended to cure the defect.

An amendment can not introduce matter not substan-
tially described in the application as filed.

1 If two patents covering the same invention issue to
the same inventor, the later is void.

A new application filed by the executor of a deceased
applicant is a continuation of the former application and
has the same status in the Patent Office.

An application for a patent for a joint invention can
be made only by all the joint inventors.

34 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

The Patent Office refuses to give to strangers to the
record copies of pending applications without the consent
of the applicant or his assignees.

ASSIGNMENT.

An assignment, grant, or conveyance is void as against
any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable
consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in
the Patent Office within three months from the date
thereof.

An assignment of an unpatented invention which does
not contain a request that the patent issue to the assignee
does not convey legal title to the patent.

A patent can not issue to the assignee unless the as-
signment contains a request to that effect and is duly
recorded.

An assignment before patent, without a request that
the patent issue to the assignee, although recorded within
three months, will not prevail against a subsequent as-
signment with such a request to a bona fide purchaser.

If the assignee of a future patent records his assign-
ment after the patent issues, the legal title will vest in
him if there are no superior rights. -

The record of an assignment, whenever made, is no-
tice to a subsequent purchaser.

Actual notice to a subsequent purchaser is equivalent to
record.

An unrecorded assignment is valid against the assignor.
An assignment requires no special form.

An assignment must be in writing, but need not be un-
der seal.

An assignment of an invention before patent is valid.

An assignment before the patent issues is a contract
to assign the patent when issued, and creates an equit-
able title to the patent in the assignee, although the patent
issues to the inventor.

An assignment holds good although the invention is not
yet perfected.

An assignment of one patent with all modifications,
improvements, and re-issues does not cover a later in-
vention attaining the same end by different means.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 35

An assignee takes subject to all the legal consequences
of the previous acts of his assignor, such as implied
licenses.

A conveyance of "all my right, title and interest in
and to," a patent, though properly recorded, does not
affect a territorial right previously conveyed to a third
party, even if the prior conveyance is not recorded.

An assignment of a patent carries an implied warranty
of title.

An assignment of ''all my right, title and interest"
does not imply a warranty of title.

If a patent is void because the invention is useless,
the note given for it is without consideration.

Money paid for a void patent can be recovered.

A statement by a vender that an invention would be
useful to the vendee is a .mere expression of opinion, not
a fraud.

Only falsehood as to matter of fact and not errors of
opinion can render a sale void.

False representations as to the amount already offered
for the patent are not such warranties of value as will
render the sale void, or support any action for fraud.

Married women or minors may be made assignees.
A minor must assign by guardian.

The assignment of a patent by one of two adminis-
trators is sufficient to transfer the entire interest in the
patent.

A right of action for damages for past infringements
may be assigned.

An assignment of a patent does not cover claims for
past infringements unless so expressed.

An assignment during a suit does not affect the liti-
gation.

After an assignment has been forfeited by breach of
condition, the assignee can grant nothing, either by way
of license or otherwise.

An assignment of all the assignor's property except
such as is exempt by law does not include a patent right.

A trustee in insolvency does not, by virtue of his ap
pointment as trustee, acquire the patents of the insol-
vent.

36 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

A patent can not be seized and sold on execution like
personal property in general.

A court of equity may compel an insolvent to assign
the patent or may appoint a trustee to make the assign-
ment.

CLAIM.

A patentee is bound by his claims.

Claims should be construed, if possible, to sustain the
patentee's right to cover his entire invention.

But the court can not go outside of the clear meaning
of the claims.

Matter not claimed is not covered by the patent.

When an element is described, declared to be an es-
sential feature of the invention, and made an element
in the claims, the patentee is not at liberty to say that
the element is immaterial or that a device which dis-
penses with it is an infringement.

The circumstance that a patentee,' when an applicant,
had no attorney, is no reason for granting him a more
liberal construction of his patent.

A claim is invalid, when the patent does not disclose
the manner in which the combination of the claim can
be operated.

The claims need not be limited to correspond with the
form of operation described.

Details of construction not essential to the invention
should be described, but should not be inserted in the
claims.

Differences which would be important in a subordinate
patent are unessential in a pioneer patent.

A claim for a tube "reduced in diameter to support
the end of a spring" covers a tube having ears bent in
from the tube.

An understanding of the physical laws under which
an invention operates is *not essential in a claim for a
patent.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 37

COPYRIGHT.

One advertising pamphlet, resembling a copyrighted ad-
vertising pamphlet in its advertising features only, does
not infringe the copyright, since such features are not
the subject of a copyright.

A device for the storage and indexing of letters is not
a proper subject matter for copyright, inasmuch as it is
not a medium for information.

DESIGN.

A design is not new unless it appears to ordinary ob-
servers to be different from the old, but the difference
may be small.

Designs have relation to external appearance merely
and are not concerned with internal structure.

The grant of a mechanical patent is no bar to the grant
of a design patent for the same article.

EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYEE.

An employee may assign his inventions to his employer
in advance of making them.

When an employee using the time and at the expense
of the employer makes an invention, the invention is his
own, but the employer has an implied license to use it.

When a workman is hired to invent, the employer will
own the inventions which fall within the scope of the
contract, while the others belong to the employee.

An inventor who employs a mechanic to embody his
conception in practical form retains his exclusive right
to the perfected improvement, notwithstanding the per-
fection is partly due to the exercise of the mechanical
skill of the employee.

An employee may be enjoined from fraudulently dis-
closing the secret invention of his employer.

A patent granted to one member of a firm is not part-
nership property, although the firm paid the patent fees
and used the invention.

Toe conduct of an employee in permitting his em-
ployers to treat the invention as their own may be con-

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

elusive evidence of an agreement that the invention shall
belong to them.

By contract express or implied an employer may ac
quire a right either to own the invention of the employee
or to the use of it. The law does not favor a claim to
the former, but favors a claim to the latter. Strict proof
therefore is required to establish the former contract,
whereas the latter is easily established and will generally
be presumed.

EQUIVALENTS.

Two devices are equivalent which accomplish the same
results but by different modes of operation.

Where a patent is for a combination, to support a
charge of infringement it must be shown that the in
fringer has used substantially the same combination, in-
cluding every one of the elements thereof, or a mechanical
equivalent for any one that has been omitted.

GRANTS.

A grant should be construed to cover whatever is nec-
essary to render it effective.

An assignee of a territorial right, without restrictions
may sell the patented device to be 'used anywhere, but
not to be sold again outside his territory.

If A grants to B the right to make and sell a patented
article in the State of New York only, and C buys the
article from B, C cannot be prevented from selling the
article anywhere else in the United States.

The purchaser of a machine from one who has a right
to use, and to sell to others to be used, only in a certain
territory, has no right to use it elsewhere, and if he does,
is liable for royalties to the patentee.

The assignee of a right to make, use and sell a ma-
chine only in a certain territory may sell the product of
the machine anywhere.

INFRINGEMENT.

Mere differences in form are not sufficient to avoid in-
fringement.

Interchangeability or non-interchangeability of the re-
spective devices is an important test as to infringement.

An inventor is entitled to all the necessary and legiti-
mate results attained by his invention, including such as
were not foreseen.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 39

Whether or not a device is an infringement is deter-
mined by the claims of the patent, not by the actual in-
vention.

One valid claim in a patent may be infringed though
other claims are not valid.

Identity of mode of operation is necessary for one de-
vice to infringe the patent for another.

A machine different in form will infringe if the struc-
tural law is the same as that of the patented machine.

A process is infringed only when every step claimed as
essential is used.

A process may be infringed though the order of the
steps is varied, when the order is not essential.

A combination patent is infringed if the substance of the
combination is taken, whatever equivalents, alterations, or
omissions may be resorted to.

A claim comprising "terminals," such terminals being
essential elements, is not infringed by a device employing
only one terminal.

The use of a hard cast-iron pin does not infringe a
claim limited to a soft-metal safety-pin, wooden safety-pin
being old.

The substitution of spring rockers for a pivot or hinge
to produce a tipping movement is an infringement, for the
two are equivalent.

A patent for a composition of matter is infringed, if
the new element does the same thing as the one for which
it is substituted, though otherwise it is different.

A design infringes a patented design if it is the same to
the eye of an ordinary observer giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives.

An improvement may be an infringement.

An improver may infringe though his improvement gives
to the invention nearly all its value.

The use of a patented invention as an element in a
new construction is an infringement.

A difference in the purpose for which an invention is
used will not prevent an infringement.

Making a part of an invention with the intent that
others shall make the remainder and unite them is in-
fringement.

40 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

If a patented invention is not operative, it cannot be
infringed by one that is.

An article incapable of performing the functions of a
patented device cannot be an infringement.

A device which may be forced to operate like the pat-
ented device is not an infringement if such use was not
an object of the construction.

To make a patented article in order to experiment with
it as a basis for proposed improvement by the maker is
not infringement.

To experiment with a patented article to gratify scien-
tific tastes or for curiosity or amusement is not infringe-
ment.

To make for use in order to see whether the use will be
profitable, and using for that purpose is infringement.

The possession of infringing articles bought for use but
not yet used is an infringement.

There may be an infringement though the infringer does
not know of the patent.

A sale of an infringing device by an agent is an infringe-
ment by the principal.

Any party making profits by an infringement is a wrong-
doer and is liable to the patentee.

One who licenses others to use certain improvements of
his own does not infringe the original patent improved
upon.

The use of an infringing device is not justified by the
fact that the patentee failed for some years to manu-
facture his device.

Nor by the refusal of the patentee to furnish his device
when required.

No infringement can be committed before the issue of
the patent.

An infringement may be committed by the use, after a
patent issues, of a device constructed before the issue of
the patent.

A patentee is estopped from denying the validity of the
patent in a suit for infringement brought against him by
his assignee.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 41

A licensee merely refusing to pay his royalties cannot
be treated as an infringer.

The measure of damages in an infringement suit is not
what the defendant has gained but what the plaintiff has
lost.

A patentee may circulate notices warning the public not
to buy the invention except from him.

INJUNCTIONS.

No preliminary injunction will be granted unless the
patent has been sustained by a judgment or acquiescence in
a long exclusive use.

A bond may be ordered instead of an injunction where
the defendant is responsible and intends to contest the
suit.

An injunction will be refused and a bond ordered when
the defendant has large capital invested and the plaintiff
does not manufacture the invention.

An injunction will be refused and a bond ordered when
the defendant's machine embraces valuable features not
covered by the plaintiff's patent.

An injunction will be granted against a licensee unless
his acts are in accordance with his license.

If the defendant infringes when the plaintiff is power-
less to prevent it, that does not take away his right to
protect his interests when he becomes able.

A mere forbearance to sue, after giving notice, does not
affect the right to an injunction.

A license fee fixes the amount of damages where there
have been licenses enough issued to establish a market
value.

Where there is no established license fee, general evi-
dence concerning damages may be given.

In a suit for infringment the verdict of the jury must
be confined to the actual damages and the Court may then
increase them not exceeding three times the amount, if nec-
essary to give complete redress to the plaintiff.

The recovery of profits and damages from the manufac-
turers of an infringing machine debars the patentee from
recovering from a user for the use of the same machine.

The refusal of a defendant to exhibit his device raises a
presumption of infringement.

42 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

An oral agreement to convey a patent will be enforced.

An agreement to assign all future inventions relating to
a certain art cannot generally be enforced in equity.

INTERFERENCES.

The burden of proof is upon the party who is the last
to file his application in the patent office.

One of two joint patentees may afterwards file a sole
application and have an interference declared with the
joint patent.

INVENTIVE SKILL.

An improvement, embodying means to cure a long stand-
ing defect in a machine, involves invention, although the
means were simple and, after the event, apparently ob-
vious.

In a suit on a patent, where the other facts leave the
question of invention in doubt, the fact that the device has
generally displaced other devices of its kind on its merits
is sufficient to turn the scale in favor of the invention.

Though a device at first sight appears to be nothing more
than a simple adaptation of a former device, the fact that
the former device was used for many years while the need
was felt for something to do the work done by the latter
device, implies invention and not mere skill.

The fact that each and every element of a combination
was old and well known at the date of a patent is not suf-
ficient to deprive the invention claimed of novelty, for most
of the inventions of the present day consist of the utiliza-
tion and adaptation of mechanical appliances that are
themselves old and well known.

When a patentee had borrowed in part from the previous
art, but had so arranged the various parts as to tend to-
ward simplicity and double the speed of the machine the
patent was sustained.

The difference between the use of two devices may be so
extreme and the conditions so radically different that the
adaptation of what was useful in one sphere to use in
another would possibly require more inventive faculty than
the creation of something novel in itself.

Inclining holes in a gas-heater downwards instead of
horizontally, when more efficient, is patentable.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 43

Where the article sought to be patented differs from prior
like articles merely in the superiority of the materials of
which it is composed, the material and its properties be-
ing old and known, there is no invention in the substitu-
tion.

There is no invention involved in striking up from a

ank by means of a die a ra"
viously been made by casting.

blank by means of a die a railway brace which has pre
b

To make a single solid casting instead of connected parts
is not invention.

To make an apparatus portable is not a patentable im-
provement.

It does not require invention merely to unite two short
cars so as to make a single long car with a central trans-
verse platform.

It is not patentable to provide an index table across
ch page of an index
or back only of the book.

each page of an index volume, instead of at the front
ck

It does not require invention to provide an old form ot
garment-stay with projections, which are also old for the
same purpose in devices of a similar character.

JURISDICTION.

Questions affecting the validity of a patent, the title to a
patent or the infringement of a patent are determined in
the Federal Courts only.

Federal C'ourts have no jurisdiction over suits for royal-
ties.

A Circuit Court has no jurisdiction unless the defendant
is served in his own district, or is found and served where
sued.

Actions on a contract relating to a patent between citi-
zens of the same State are determined in the State Court
only.

The validity of a patent may be the subject of inquiry
in a State Court collaterally in a suit upon a contract.

A State Court cannot enjoin infringers.

A State cannot tax the property in Letters Patent but
may tax the proceeds thereof.

A decision in the Patent Office is not binding on the
Courts.

44 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

LICENSES.

The only matter conveyed in a license is the right not to
be sued.

A grant reserving to the grantor certain usages of the
invention is a mere license.

A license need not be written.

Oral evidence is not admissible to explain a written li-
cense but the parties must stand to the license as written.

A license need not be recorded.

Licenses are governed by the State Law.

A license may be granted before the patent issues.

A license is only assignable when it clearly appears that
it was intended to be so.

A license to use a certain fixed quantity is assignable.

A personal license granted for a certain period will ex-
pire at the death of the licensee unless also granted to his
assignees.

A license to a partnership is not affected by a change of
members in the firm.

A license to manufacture "at their shop" in a place de-
scribed, is not transferable.

A license to use "at his own establishment" does not
cover a use at a shop owned by himself and others.

A license to use a device on a certain railroad does not
carry the right to use the device on the cars of the licensee
over whatever railroad they may be run.

A license to a railroad company to use a patented de-
vice on their road extends no further than the road was
built and used by it at the time the license was given, the
use on roads built or leased afterwards not being pro-
tected.

A license "to use to the extent of one machine" in-
cludes the right to make for such use and to repair in-
definitely.

The words "licensed to use once only" if stamped on an
invention are notice that it is used under such a license
and that the license expires on its first use.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 45

When an inventor sells an article which is to be pro-
tected by a patent, or knowingly permits another to use it,
before the patent issues, the purchaser or maker has an
implied license to use and sell the specific article only, the
same as if he had bought it from the patentee after the
issue of the patent.

The lawful sale of a patented article carries with it the
right to use it until worn out.

When a patented device is accidentally destroyed or
where it is practically worn out, the owner cannot, under
pretense of repairing it, make a new device. In such case
he must cast it aside and buy a new one from the pat-
entee.

Where a patent covers the combination of a drawhead,
a knuckle, a pivot-pin, and a locking-pin, it is not in-
fringed by a defendant who furnishes the knuckles to re-
place broken ones.

A patented machine, sold at a sheriff's sale, carries with
it a license to use the machine.

The sale of an invention, the use of which involves the
use of a process patented by the same grantor, is a license
to use the process.

The contract of a workman to give his employer the
benefit of his inventions is a license, not a grant.

A license fully paid for in advance, and not upon condi-
tion, is irrevocable.

A breach of covenant in a license does not work a for-
feiture of the license unless it is so expressly agreed.

It is the duty of the licensor to demand the license fee,
if he has no other agreement, and not wait for the licensee
to pay it.

If a royalty is based on the number of articles sold, and
the licensee ceases to make anu sell, he abandons his li-
cense, and the licensor may then license other parties.

An agreement to pay the inventor a royalty until $5,000
has been paid and then a lower one, is an agreement to
continue the business as long as it is reasonably profitable.

An agreement to pay a certain sum for each of the first
four hundred machines is not a contract to make that num-
ber.

An agreement to pay a certain royalty on every article
made on the patented machine i^ not an agreement to
run a machine to its utmost capacity.

46 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

A licensee while receiving benefit under an apparently
void patent is obliged to pay his royalties, and the in-
validity of the patent is no defense.

A licensee must repudiate his license before he can de-
fend against a claim for royalties by denying the validity
of the patent.

When an exclusive licensee fails to pay as he agrees,
and the patentee thereupon grants an exclusive license to
another, who has notice of the prior license, the first li-
censee may at any time tender what is due and assert his
rights as against the second licensee.

A license under a foreign patent does not authorize tha
licensee to make the article abroad for use here.

A license taken to avoid a suit is not taken under duress
or fraud.

Each joint owner of a patent may license without the
consent of the others, but is liable to them for their shares
of the profits of such license.

MARKING "PATENTED."

Any person marking an unpatented article as patented,
with intent to deceive, is liable to a_ penalty of $100 for
each article; one-half of which is paid to the person suing
for the same; any person may bring suit.

When a device has been manufactured and sold for five
years, it is immaterial that a large number of the devices
were not marked "patented" if enough were so marked to
give general notice to the public.

There is no objection to marking an article for which
an application has been made, as "Patent applied for."

Any person infringing a design patent is liable to a pen-
alty of not less than $250.

PATENTABILITY.

The object of an invention is not patentable, the means
for attaining the object may be.

Adulterations of food are not patentable.

Doubts as to patentability should be resolved in favor of
the inventor.

A combination of old elements producing a new and use-
ful result is patentable.

An old construction in a windmill is not patentable in a
paddle wheel.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 47

An old construction of cutter-head in a wood-planing ma-
chine is not patentable in an ice-planing machine.

PAYMENT OF FEES.

When an appeal is regularly taken and the fee therefor
paid, but the applicant changes his purpose and concludes*
not to prosecute the appeal, the appeal fee cannot be re-
turned.

PEIOE USE.

A process accidentally performed by an experimenter, but
unnoted, and presumably unobserved, by him, does not an-
ticipate a subsequent invention of the process.

A mere accidental use of some of the features of an in-
vention without recognition of its benefit, does not consti-
tute anticipation.

A suggestion in a prior patent that a part of the opera-
tion may be the same as applicant's process, is not an antic-
ipation, where, first, such change in the operation was not
made, and, secondly, the patent did not state clearly how
it could be made.

Evidence of experimental use of the device patented,
which was unknown to the patentee, is not an anticipa-
tion of his patent.

The patent of an originator of a complete and successful
invention cannot be invalidated by proof of any number of
incomplete and imperfect devices.

The fact that all the elements of a combination may be
found partly in one prior structure and partly in another
is unsafe ground for overturning a patent.

Oral testimony, unsupported by patents or exhibits, tend-
ing to show prior use of a device regularly patented, is,
in the nature of the case, open to grave suspicion.

As clear and convincing proof is necessary to invalidate
a patent by evidence of prior use as would be required to
convict a person charged with crime.

Prior use requires a practical working apparatus.

The abandonment of a thing greatly needed indicates that
it was an unsuccessful experiment.

Secret use is not prior use.

PROCESS.

A new process may be created by omitting one of the
steps regarded as necessary ia an old one.

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

A process, within the meaning of the patent laws, must
accomplish some change in the character or condition of
material objects.

PUBLIC USE.

Use in public, or by the public, in the way of business,
or a sale, or an offer for sale, more than two years prior
to the application, is a bar to a patent.

The making or construction of an invention without us-
ing it is not public use.

A use, clearly experimental, although public, to test the
capability of the invention, is not public use.

A continued use in business without change is not ex-
perimental use.

A single instance of use in public, or a single sale, is a
sufficient bar, if more than two years prior to the appli-
cation.

Use in a workshop, when the workmen are pledged to
secrecy, is not public use; but if they are not pledged to
secrecy, or if the use is in view of customers, it is pub-
lic use.

The invalidating public use may be without the consent
of the inventor.

The two years public use invalidating the patent must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there has been a use in public more than two years
before application, the burden is upon the patentee to prove
that it was experimental.

Sale of the future patent covering an invention more
than two years before the application does not bar the
patent.

When the invention is put into public use without re-
serving rights to it or exercising control over it, or ex-
amining it to test its efficiency, the use is not experi-
mental.

REAL INVENTOK.

If A suggests the idea of an invention to B but gives no
explanation how the idea is to be carried into effect, and
B embodies the idea in practical shape, B is the real in-
ventor.

When a partv suggested to another that a certain tool
or device could be altered to adapt it for a desired oper-

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 49

ation, but did not explain how, and the latter proceeded to
make the alterations, the latter is the inventor.

An inventor assigns an interest in his invention to an-
other, who agrees to furnish all necessary funds. The lat-
ter then experiments and makes the invention a success.
He cannot, however, for that reason appropriate more than
the original interest assigned him.

REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.

A drawing or model demonstrating the efficiency and op-
erativeness of the machine is not the equivalent of the ac-
tual machine and is not a reduction to practice.

A machine may have been far from perfect and never
operated continuously for work in a commercial sense, and
yet a reasonably successful reduction to practice.

In cases where delay in completing an invention is ex-
cused there is something of compelling power in the cir-
cumstances that produce it.

Poverty, sickness, etc., will not excuse delay in reduc-
tion to practice for an indefinite period.

RE-ISSUES.

A delay of two years is the limit permissible in apply-
ing for a re-issue to broaden a claim, except unaer spe-
cial circumstances.

A re-issue will not be granted, if, before applying for
a re-issue, other parties have begun to use the subject
matter not claimed.

A claim rejected and cancelled in the original applica-
tion cannot be restored on re-issue.

If the application for re-issue be rejected, the original
patent stands precisely as though a re-issue had never
been applied for, unless the re-issue be refused upon some
ground equally affecting1 the original patent.

A re-issue may correct errors occasioned by mistaken
ideas of the objections raised in the Patent Office.

TRADE-MARKS.

Trade-marks cannot be registered as labels.

Neither a print nor a label can be registered as a print
or label if previously used as a trade-mark, but must be
registered as a trade-mark.

50 SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW.

A print or label can be registered if it has artistic merit
as a picture, but if it merely describes the article in words
it cannot be registered.

The word "imperial" being descriptive of quality cannot
become the subject of a lawful trade-mark.

The word "Olive" cannot be registered as a trade-mark
for bicycles, as it indicates the color of the bicycles.

Numerals to identify specific remedies are descriptive
terms and not registrable as trade-marks.

Bromo-quinine is either descriptive, if the preparation
contains bromide, or misleading, if it does not, and in
either case is not a valid trade-mark.

The words "Syrup of Figs" for a compound whose prin-
cipal ingredient is senna is not a valid trade-mark, being
deceptive.

The words "Fibre Chamois" are sufficiently ai'bitrary to
be registrable.

The words "Social Register" constitute a valid trade-
mark.

The form of a package alone can .rarely be the subject
of trade-mark protection. If novel, it should be the sub-
ject of a design patent.

When an inventor obtains a patent on a device and the
device is known by a certain name, the name becomes
public property at the expiration of the patent.

When a sewing machine invented by S. becomes known as
the S. sewing machine, and is patented, then after the
expiration of the patent any one can make and sell a ma-
chine and has a right to call it an S. sewing machine.

Where a name has been used as a mark experimentally
and put upon the market at long intervals, and in the
meantime a second party has innocently used the name and
built up a large business, the first party will have acquired
no rights against the second.

A man has the right to the use of his own name to
designate his goods so long as he uses it honestly and so
as not to injure another having the same name, and to
prevent such injury he may be required to use his name
in a special manner pointed out in an injunction.

No one may designate an article of his own production

SUMMARY OF PATENT LAW. 51

by his own name in such a way as to cause it to be mis-
taken for the manufacture of another already on the market.
The essential feature of a trade-mark is not that which
the registrant selects to designate as such, but that which
would strike the public mind as its most salient feature.

TRANSFER OF PATENTS.

Every patent and every interest in a patent is transfer-
able.

A conveyance of the whole interest, or an undivided por-
tion of the whole interest, throughout the whole of the
United States, is an assignment.

A conveyance of such an interest throughout a part only
of the United States is a grant.

A conveyance of any other interest than that by assign-
ment or grant is a license.

A transfer of the exclusive right to sell an invention is a
license only, since it does not transfer the exclusive right
to make or use, and the legal right to the patent does not
pass by the transfer.

A transfer of the right to make and sell carries the right
to use the invention, and, if exclusive, transfers the entire
invention, and is not a license but an assignment.

UTILITY.

The degree of utility of a device is unimportant in de-
termining whether a device be patentable. If the inven-
tion is not frivolous or prejudicial to the public and has
any degree of usefulness, no matter how slight, it is pat-
entable.

An invention employed only for gambling is not useful or
patentable.

TESTIMONIALS

140 North Ninth St., San Jose, Cal., Feb. 25, 1900.
Mr. Francis M. Wright — Dear Sir: I have had several
patents granted to me, but none with as little delay as
the one secured by you on my "Musical Whistle." This,
coupled with the fact that you secured the allowance of
two broad, comprehensive claims, while another local Patent
Agency reported upon making a "Preliminary Examination"
that this article was not even patentable, shows that you
thoroughly understand your business «and are worthy the
patronage of inventors desiring quick, intelligent service.
Very truly yours, M. BARTHEL.

Gualala, Cal., Feb. 9, 1900.

F. M. Wright, Esq., Atty. at Law, San Francisco, Cal.
— Dear Sir: I want to thank you, and express my satisfac-
tion at the manner in which you procured United States
and Canadian Letters Patent on Rotary Engine. You ar»
at liberty to refer to me at any time. Yours truly,

E. P. COUTURE.

I consider Patent Atty. Francis M. Wright one of the best
and most reliable patent experts in the country. I know
him to be a man of highest character, and what he says
can be relied on as absolutely correct. Should he consider
an invention unpatentable he frankly says so and thus
spares the inventor needless expense and mortification. He
also gives sound advice as to how a patent may be mar-
keted at the least expense and with the best prospects of
success. I strongly recommend him to all my friends who
need the services of a careful, painstaking and conscientious
expert. They can safely rely on his knowledge, judgment
and integrity.

DR. F. CURTIS.
401 L St., Sacramento, Cal.

Watsonville, Cal., Jan. 24, 1900.

Mr. W. R. Ellis — My Dear Sir: — I followed your advice
and took the case from my foi-mer attorney and put it into
the hands of Mr. F. M. Wright, and in less than thirty days
the claim was allowed, a claim too that covers the in-
vention.

I wish to thank you a thousand times for your timely
advice. My case was put into the hands of

54 TESTIMONIALS.

last June, and after over six months time

was a complete failure; no claim was allowed and, in fact
no claim was ever made which, if allowed, would have cov-
ered my invention. I had almost lost hope of securing my
claim although satisfied that no reference cited by the Ex-
aminer was pertinent in the case, and why ? The claims
were all wrong.

Again I thank you and hope to be able some day to re-
turn the favor. Your friend,

DR. E. EDGAR CAMPBELL.

Livermore, Cal., Jan. 31, 1900.

Dr. R. E. Campbell, Watsonville, Cal. — Dear Doctor:
Yours of the 24th inst. at hand. I am pleased but not
surprised at the outcome of your late patent application.
I knew, as I told you, that Mr. Wright would go to the
core of your case and get all there was in it with prompt-
ness. I had an unfortunate experience not unlike yours
with inefficient patent attorneys in San Francisco before I
met Mr. Wright. In one case I was finally and completely
rejected after nearly a year's fight in the Patent Office.
The case was "bungled." Mr. Wright took it up and ob-
tained strong claims for me, giving me abundant protec-
tion, and the invention thus covered I have now leased
to one of the biggest factories of the East with the brightest
prospects of obtaining good returns from it.

I am more than glad that you have found Mr. Wright,
to your own satisfaction, all that I led you to expect him
to be. A patent solicitor should have wit, an inventive mind,
and a conscience. These Mr. Wright has and more. He is,
in my opinion, the best equipped man in his profession on
the Pacific Coast. Sincerely,

W. R. ELLIS,
Inventor the Ellis Ballot Machine.

2220 Adeline St., Oakland, Cal.

Mr. Francis M. Wright — Dear Sir: I heartily appre-
ciate the fact that in all my experience with patent agents,
the obtaining of my patent on "Mucilage Spreader," in
twenty-three days from the date of application, you have
broken the record for promptness, and ability in your pro-
fession. I assure you it gives me pleasure to make men-
tion of you in this manner. PHILO E. DANIELS.

San Francisco, March 9, 1899.
Having had some varied experience in procuring patents

TESTIMONIALS. 55

for my inventions, it gives me great pleasure to testify to
the professional ability and business-like methods of Mr.
F. M. Wright, who is at present handling my patent cases.
In particular I have been favorably impressed with the
thoroughness with which Mr. Wright grasps the essential
and vital features of an invention, and the lucid and con-
vincing style in which he presents them to the Patent Of-
fice. He has been notably prompt in official action and has
treated me straightforwardly as a client. I have found
Mr. Wright reasonable in his charges. I believe him to be
thoroughly reliable in every way, and can confidentially
recommend him to other inventors.

C. W. TUDOR DAVIES.

2151 San Antonio Ave., Alameda, Cal., Oct. 14, 1898.
To Whom It May Concern: It gives me sincere pleasure
to say that I have employed the services of Francis M.
Wright, Esq., as patent attorney in several inventions of
mine, and can, and do, attest the fact that he is most trust-
worthy and competent. Indeed, I may say, in all truth, that
I have found no one in San Francisco who has ever per
formed his work in this direction as satisfactorily as Mr.
Wright has done, and I shall most certainly continue to em-
ploy his services in any patent work that I may hereafter
have in hand. His wide experience as an examiner in the
United States Patent Office, as well as his abilities in his
profession, eminently fit him for successful work, and ren-
der him worthy of the confidence of his clientage. Re
spectfully, WILLARD B. FARWELL.

San Francisco, March 27, 1899.

Mr. F. M. Wright — Dear Sir: Having obtained several
patents through your management, it gives me great pleas-
ure to state that your handling of them has been quite sat-
isfactory to me — having had considerable trouble with other
patent attorneys. I think I am able to form a fairly good
judgment now about what is required to draw up claims
so as to get an invention covered as broadly as possible,
and will say that I hold a good opinion of your ability
and integrity, so far as the same have come under my
observation, and I shall always be willing to recommend
you to my friends. Yours sincerely,

HENRY H. GORTER,
Master Mechanic S. F. Fire Dept.

February 3, 1899.
To Whom It My Concern: I have had F. M. Wright,

56 TESTIMONIALS.

of 723 Market Street, San Francisco, attending to patent
business before the United States Patent Office for me in
a number of cases, and I regard him as one of the ablest
men in that line I have ever met. I can recommend him
to any one who needs an attorney in the patent business.

F. M. GRAHAM.

220 South Ninth St., San Jose, Cal.

February 0, 1900.

To Whom It May Concern : I have known Mr. Francis
M. Wright for the past two years as a Patent Attorney,
having secured Patents through his efforts, and I consider
him to be one of the ablest Patent Attorneys on this Coast.
He is honest, persevering, and untiring in his efforts for
his clients.

I cheerfully recommend him to any one requiring the ser-
vices of a very capable and conscientious gentleman and
attorney. E. W. HUTCHINSON.

114a llth St., San Francisco.
King's Institute of Vibration, 138 McAllister St.,

San Francisco, C'al., Dec. 4, 1000.

Francis M. Wright, Esq. — Dear SirL I wish to express
my appreciation of the able manner in which you have con-
ducted my applications and secured allowances for pat-
ents. The first application seemed to be one which pre-
sented much difficulty to my former attorney, the claims
allowed being unsatisfactory to me. After placing the
matter in your hands I found that you were able to meet all
the technicalities of the case, drafting the broadest and most
comprehensive and at the same time most concise claims to
meet and cover most thoroughly all the requirements of my
invention. Respectfully yours,

F. KING.

Mr. F. M. Wright — Dear Sir: Allow me to say as briefly
as possible that, after trying to get a patent myself, after
repeated rejections I sent the case to an advertising firm in
Washington, but they could see no prospect of getting the

fatent. I then placed it in your hands, and to-day, April
5, 1899, I have received notice that my claim has been
allowed. Yours truly, IRA G. LEEK,

724^ Market St., San Francisco.

Feb. 10, 1900.
Mr. Francis M. Wright — Dear Sir: — Understanding that

TESTIMONIALS. 57

you are about issuing another edition of your pamphlets
on Patents for circulation among inventors, it gives me
pleasure to state that you have handled my various appli-
cations, domestic and foreign, in a manner highly satis-
factory to me and creditable to yourself. My inventions
are in line of special Sewing Machines in which I have
been engaged about 30 years, and are generally compli-
cated and difficult to describe and claim on account of the
great number of Patents already in existence, and to do
this requires ability of a high order as well as a thorough
knowledge of Patent Law, both of which you possess, and
I am better satisfied with your work than with that of any
other attorney I have ever employed in my experience. To
all those needing the service of a careful, conscientious and
thoroughly competent attorney I shall always be glad to
recommend you. Yours, F. T. LEILICH.

27 Guerrero St., San Francisco.

Oakland, Feb. 7, 1900.

Francis M. Wright, Pat. Atty., 723 Market St., S. F.,
Cal. — Dear Sir: I wish to heartily thank you for your
promptness in bringing to a successful issue my applica-
tion in the Patent Office which had been delayed for
nearly two years through another attorney. I had thought
the case almost hopeless. I feel that my business will
always be safe and carefully attended to if in your hands
and you can count me among your appreciative clients in
the future. Very respectfullv,

L. S. MANNING.

502 E. loth Street.
San Francisco, Cal., Feb. 5, 1900.

To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that F.
M. Wright, Patent Attorney, of San Francisco, Califor-
nia, has obtained for me two good patents. During my
business with Mr. Wright, I have found him very careful
in getting up plans and specifications, and more particu-
larly in getting the claims, which is of vital importance
to an inventor, as a patent without good claims is of very
little worth. For the last fifteen (15) years I have been
engaging Patent Attorneys living in Washington and the
East to do my business, but after consulting with Mr.
Wright, I find it very advantageous to have an attorney,
as it were, right at one's elbow. From my past experi-
ence with Mr. Wright as Patent Attorney, I can conscien-
tiously recommend him to any one desiring his services.

Yours very respectfully, W. A. MERRALLS,

Manager Merralls Mill Co.

58 . TESTIMONIALS.

San Francisco, Cal., Feb. 8, 1900.

Mr. Francis M. Wright — Dear Sir: Reasoning from my
own experience in San Francisco, it "has occurred to me
that there may be many Eastern people, strangers in San
Francisco, who might desire advice in Patent matters, but
who do not know upon whom to call. To any such it
would give me great pleasure to give them the benefit of
my experience.

Something over a year ago I had inventions I wished to
protect by patents. At first I thought I must return East,
where all my patent business has been done, but upon
reflection, I decided to try a California solicitor. I called
at your office. I have been pleased with your efficient
manner of handling patent cases and drawing claims which
cover the invention and still meet the approval of the
Patent Office at Washington. Please accept my thanks
for the satisfactory services you have rendered me in the
past, and I trust that neither myself or any or my Eastern
friends when in need of advice in patent matters, need to
return to the East, but can find in your office talent equal
to any of the Eastern offices.

Yours respectfully, P. W. PRATT,

Pacific Coast Representative of the Elastic Tip Co.

San Francisco, C'alr, March 27, 1899.

Mr. Francis M. Wright— Dear Sir: I gladly testify to
the ability and promptness with which you prosecuted my
applications for patents. You have always explained every-
thing very clearly, and I am satisfied that all patentable
points are covered in the claims as broadly as possible,

Respectfully, GEO. RISCHMULLER,

3446 19th Street.

Manufacturer of Rischmuller's Patent Door Opener and
Closer.

Minnewawa Vineyard, Fresno, Cal., Feb. 5, 1900.
To Whom It May Concern : I have employed Mr. F. M.
Wright as a Patent Attorney, and his services have been
entirely satisfactory. I regard him as an honest, careful
and conscientious attorney. DR. W. N. SHERMAN.

San Francisco, Cal., Feb. 12, 1900.

It gives me pleasure to state to whom it may concern
that for about one year past Mr. Francis M. Wright has
conducted a large Patent business for the Climax Manu-
facturing Company and also for myself personally, and has

TESTIMONIALS. 59

been our attorney for much other business requiring skill
and rare judgment. He has at all times been conscientious
and untiring in his efforts, thoroughly capable profession-
ally, and has given utmost satisfaction to our company in
all things. Other patent attorneys have been employed by
us in the past, but Mr. Wright has been the most success-
ful in securing stronger patents than any before employed.
I shall be glad to answer any inquiries from inventors
seeking the services of a patent attorney, regarding the
ability and other sterling qualifications of Mr. Wright.

JAS. G. SIMONTON,
Sec. Climax Manufacturing Company, Mills Bldg.

Angels Camp, Nov. 5, 1900.

It is with pleasure that I recommend from personal
knowledge the professional services of Mr. Francis M.
Wright. He has secured for me a splendid patent for my
Stamp Mill Attachment, the application being allowed very
quickly, and I have now employed him to make applica-
tions for two more patents of a different character. My
experience with him warrants me in saying that he is
superior to any attorney I have heretofore employed.

LOUIS R. TULLOCH.

Electric Gas Regulator Co.,
San Francisco, Cal., March 2, 1899.

Mr. Francis M. ' Wright — Dear Sir : Having had many
years' experience as an inventor and a patentee, I desire
to thank you for the great service you have rendered me
in obtaining "letters patent," which protect, and thus
maintain the dignity, character and value of patents. The
"Electric Controller for Gas Regulators," U. S. L. P. No.
602,548, dated April 19, 1898, obtained by you, has been
often experted in behalf of purchasers and pronounced
without a flaw. Wishing you continued success, I remain
yours very truly, W. E. H. WILLIAMS.

SOME REFERENCES.

James H. M. Akard 178 Saejinaw St., S. F.

B. R. Albertsen 1885 Sutler St., S. F.

James H. Ailing (505 Howard St., S. F.

Joseph D. Bell 5-10 Pacific Bldg., S. F.

A. Bemmerer 1057 Mission St. S. F.

A. Bennerscheidt 308 Montcalm St.

H. W. Bodwell 210 Washington St.

B. J. S. Cahill 571 California St.

John A. Cardinell 3029 Broderick St.

Claussen & McKay 84 Hyde St.

William Couture 12 Coso Ave.

Dr. W. F. Cutler 143 Second St.

P. F. Dundon 320 Market St.

H. P. Dwyer 2910 Bush St.

Dr. C. E. Farnum 501 Devisadero St.

Lewis J. Fox 044 Natoma St.

Joseph Galleazzi 478 Jackson St.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

S. F.

F. W. Goyette 74 Sixth St.

Alius G. Hathcock 243 Seventh St., S. F.

Bertram Hunt 709 Mills Bldg., S. F.

Utakichi Kawasaki 134 Spring St., S. F.

Klopstock Bros 225U Folsom St., S. F.

Leonard McRoskey Sixteenth & Harrison Sts., S. F.

Edward N. Mills.' 1758 Fifteenth St., S. F.

Mountain Copper Co 150 Pine St., S. F.

H. M. Owens Mechanics' Savings Bk. Bldg., S. F.

J. P. A. Pearson 2306 Twenty-fourth St., S. F.

E. G. Perkins 410 Eddy St., S. F.

James B. Pope 248 Flood Bldg., S. F.

Luder Raschen 508 California St., S. F.

W. S. Ray Mfg. Co 26 Stuart St., S. F.

J. Brooke Ridley 550 Golden Gate Ave., S. F.

I. S. Rosenblatt 300 Second St., S. F.

R. Schorr Postal Telegraph Bldg., S. F.

H. Seifke 462 Sanchez St., S. F.

Charles J. Wohlander 4151 Twenty-fourth St., S. F.

D. M. Wright 2514 Pine St., S. F.

George W. Drew 2243 Peralta St., Oakland

Charles E. Forry 5414 Genoa St., Oakland

Willis E. Gibson Polytechnic Business College, Oakland

Joseph Graef 806 Fiftieth Ave., Oakland

James Herche 359 Tenth St., Oakland

Robert Morgeneier 1644 Telegraph Ave., Oakland

Alois Neubert 65 Sixth St., Oakland

G. A. Oberg 1026 Eighteenth St., Oakland

SOME REFERENCES. 61

G. Stromgren 682 Twenty-ninth St., Oakland

G. F. Buckingham 1809 Euclid Ave., Berkeley

W. C. Lewis 2914 Ellsworth St. Berkeley

George W. Menefee 3011 Shattuck Ave.

Berkeley

Dudley Newton 1752 Oxford St. Berkeley

James Rowntree 2730 Webster St. Berkeley

Mihran K. Serailian 1965 Marin St. Berkeley

David Beatty 2610 Dwight Way Berkeley

Mrs. K. L. Nevins Antioch

C. Hollenbeck Section Five Oil Co., Bakersfield

Ed. De Groat Campbell

George Lemont Chico

A. R. Arnot Colusa

John Vasey Emeryville

William A. Holland Cor. Hawthorne & B Sts., Eureka

F. A. Matthews Eureka

X. B. Converse 1029 P St., Fresno

Prentice H. Bottoms 1146 P St., Fresno

H. L. Jessen 1732 J St., Fresno

Morton Gas Engine Co 817 I St., Fresno

Ralph W. Elliott 3833 Midvale Ave., Fruit vale

Jean Le Gay 335 Baahmer St., Fruitvale

A. Washburne Route 1, Box 216, Fruitvale

E. A. Holloway Gilroy

H. L. McDuffee Gilroy

J. Francis Moore Hoquiam, Wash.

H. E. La Plant Kennet, Cal.

H. A. Brisco Lindsay, Tulare Co.

C. & E. G. Young Livermore, Cal.

E. A. Webster 824 Seventh St., Marysville

F. C. Fagan Oroville

J. H. Leggett Oroville

L. Diamond Pinole

John W. Narron 709 McDonald Ave., Richmond

Henry J. Pinkerton Watsonville

E. R. Freyer 814% K St., Sacramento

Wallace A. Avery Farmers' Union Bldg., San Jose

W. M. Herman 16 Henry St.. San Jose

Dr. E. O. Pieper San Jose

David Rinaldo 45 So. Sixth Ave., San Jose

William K. Scarborough San Jose

Henry J. Porter San Luis Obispo

E. P. Boden 941 Liberty St., Santa Clara

L. B. Christopherson Santa Clara St., San Jose

John Fatjo Santa Clara

W. B. Couson 28 Dake Ave., Santa Cruz

Dr. Frank R. Hart Santa Cruz

A. Bried Box 69, Sausalito

William M. English Sausalito

William A. Gwynn Santa Rosa

62 SOME REFERENCES.

Phillip Meyer R. F. D. 4, Box 104, Santa Rosa

A. C. Hall R. D. 3, Box 160, Sebastopol-

John E. Clifford .....;.. .Stockton-

Jean F. Deray ', '. . . .Box 291, Sunnyvale'

Thomas Pattison ..." Sunnyvale

N. S. McKinsey ..'. Susanville-

Capt. John Ross .Tiburon=

Fred M. Buck Vacaville

Clarence T. Cleve Box 316, Vallejo

Robert S. King 320 Florida St., Vallejo

P. G. Magistrini 515 Sacramento St., Vallejo

Donly C. Gray Visalia

John W. Macaulay. . . .care Mineral King Fruit Co., Visalia

Wrignt's Patent Agency

933-7 Monadnock Bldg., San Francisco

SCHEDULE OF CHARGES.

(In Ordinary Cases)

Government Agency Total
Fees Fees

Patent $35 00 $45 00 $80 00

Reissue 30 00 45 00 75 00

Design Patent, 3% years 10 00 25 00 35 00

Design Patent, 7 years 15 00 25 00 40 00

Design Patent, 14 years 30 00 25 00 55 00

Trade Marks 10 00 12 00 22 00

Appeal to Board 10 00 20 00 30 00

Appeal to Commissioner 20 00 30 00 50 00

Preliminary Examination 6 00

Assignment, Preparing and Recording 5 00

Abstract of Title .. .. 5 00

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Abandoned Applications 10

Abandonment 12

Abstract of Title 2$

Amendments and Actions by Applicants 17

Appeals 1!)

Application for a Patent, An 12

Art, An 6

Assignments 2S

Choice of an Attorney, On the 21

Claim, The 15

Composition of Matter, A 7

Copyrights 27

Cost of a Patent, The .' 25

Date of the Invention, The 10

Deceased Inventor Hi

Designs 7

Drawings, The 16

Examination of the Application 16

Foreign Patents 29-32

Foundation of the Patent Laws 5

Improvements 7

Interferences 20

Machine, A (j

Manufacture, A 7

New Matter Inadmissible 18

Novelty 9

Oath, The Hi

Official Search, The 17

Petition, The 18

Preliminary Examinations 27

Prior Foreign Patents 12

Priority of Invention 21

Products of Invention, The 8

Progress of the Case 18

Public Use 11

Patent Once Granted, A 10

Reduction to Practice 20

Re-Issues 21

Rejected Cases 25

Specification, The 13

Subjects of Patents, The 5

Trade Marks 27

Utility 10

Validity and Scope of Patents 28