PATENT GI 
 
 ii 
 
 WITH 
 
 PRAGTIGENQT
 
 L 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 THE 
 
 PATENT CITATOR 
 
 WITH 
 
 PRACTICE NOTES 
 
 IN 
 
 APPEAL CASES 
 
 BY 
 ELLIOTT J. STODDARD 
 
 (DETROIT BAR) 
 
 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 
 
 DRAKE LAW BOOK COMPANY 
 1909
 
 1909 
 
 
 COPYRIGHT. 1909 
 
 DRAKE LAW BOOK CO.
 
 c- 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia seems to be attracting 
 a greater and greater degree of confidence. Appeals to it in patent matters 
 are more prevalent than formerly, and the stricture, that it is a mere instru- 
 ment for putting a seal upon the errors of an over-burdened Patent Office, 
 is not so frequently heard. Those interested in patent property are 
 indebted to it for settling a number of difficult questions of law and practice 
 upon what seems to be correct and permanent grounds. A sentiment of 
 gratitude and courtesy imposes upon those practicing before it the pleasant 
 obligation of facilitating its labors as much as possible. It is hoped that 
 these notes, mainly made for my own use, may assist to this end in some 
 slight degree. 
 
 Elliott J. Stoddard. 
 Detroit, Mich., March 15, 1909.
 
 INDEX-CONTENTS 
 
 10 
 
 PATENT PRACTICE NOTES 
 
 IN 
 
 APPEAL CASES 
 
 Page 
 COURT RULES 
 
 COURT DECISIONS MUST BE CITED IN BRIEFS 1 
 
 APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 1 
 OPINIONS OF LOWER COURT AND COMMISSIONER 
 
 OF PATENTS MADE PART OF RECORD 2 
 
 SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS EXCLUDED 3 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS TO APPELLANTS 3 
 
 POWERS OF THE COURT 4 
 
 ACT Sec. 1, 4 
 
 CONSTITUTIONALITY Sec. 2, 4 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF INTERFERENCE IN SECTION 
 
 NINE OF ACT Sec. 3, 5 
 RULES OF PATENT OFFICE RELATING TO AP- 
 PEALS Sec. 4, 5 
 JURISDICTION 
 
 As TO Its Scope Sec. 5, 5 
 
 As TO Appeal on a Motion to Dissolve Sec. 6, 6 
 
 As to Administration of Patent Office Sec. 7, 6 
 
 As to Remedy In Equity Sec. 8, 6 
 
 APPEAL 6 
 PARTIES 
 
 As TO Appeal Sec. 9, 6 
 As TO Rights Respecting Non-Appealing 
 
 Parties Sec. 10, 7 
 
 FINAL DECISIONS OF COMMISSIONER 
 
 As TO Final Decisions Sec. 11, 7 
 
 As TO Certain Cases Sec. 12, 7 
 
 As TO Amendments Sec. 13, 7 
 
 SUBJECT MATTER 
 
 As TO Patentability In Interference Cases Sec. 14, 7 
 As TO Priority Being Settled Before 
 
 Patentability . Sec. 15, 8
 
 16, 
 
 8 
 
 17, 
 
 8 
 
 18, 
 
 8 
 
 19, 
 
 8 
 
 20, 
 
 8 
 
 21, 
 
 8 
 
 22, 
 
 9 
 
 23, 
 
 9 
 
 26, 
 
 9 
 
 27, 
 
 9 
 
 28, 
 
 9 
 
 29, 
 
 9 
 
 30, 
 
 10 
 
 31, 
 
 10 
 
 X INDEX — CONTENTS 
 
 APPEALS— CONTINUED Page 
 
 As TO Interlocutory Rulings Sec. 
 
 As TO Newly Discovered Evidence Sec. 
 As TO Interlocutory Decisions Not Subject 
 
 TO Reviews Sec. 
 As TO Descriptions Not Usually Reviewable Sec. 
 
 As to Trade-Mark Interference Sec. 
 
 As TO Priority of Invention Sec. 
 
 As TO Identity of Invention Sec. 
 
 As TO Quasi-Judicial Proceedings Sec. 
 As TO Refusal to Consider Patentability 
 
 Final Sec. 24, 
 As to Certain Rights of Party Considered 
 
 Ancillary Sec. 25, 
 As TO Decisions Confined to Matters Considered 
 
 By Commissioner Sec. 
 
 As TO Additional Claim Presented Sec. 
 
 As TO Claim Considered By the Office Sec. 
 As TO Distinction Between Rights of Appeal 
 
 AND Refusal of Patent Sec. 
 
 As to Patentability Not Re-Considered Sec. 
 
 As to Consideration of Final Decisions Sec. 
 
 MOTIONS 
 
 As TO Delay Sec. 32, 10 
 As TO Appellee's Right to Have Cause Dis- 
 missed Sec. 33, 10 
 As to New Trial Sec. 34, 10 
 
 ORDER 
 
 As TO Refusing New Trial Sec. 35, 10 
 
 RECORD 
 
 As TO Content Sec. 
 
 As TO Failure to Print Sec. 
 
 As to Being Public Sec. 
 
 RULES 
 
 As to Limitation of Time Sec. 39, 1 1 
 
 WEIGHT GIVEN COMMISSIONER'S DECISIONS 
 
 As TO the Rule of the Conclusiveness of 
 
 facts Sec. 
 
 Cases Reviewed Sec. 
 
 Conception Sec. 
 
 Diligence Sec. 
 
 Disclosure Sec. 
 
 Employer and Employee Sec. 
 
 Evidence Sec. 
 
 Identity of Inventor Sec. 
 
 Office Practice Sec. 
 
 36, 
 
 10 
 
 37, 
 
 11 
 
 38, 
 
 11 
 
 40, 
 
 
 41, 
 
 
 42, 
 
 
 43, 
 
 
 44, 
 
 
 45, 
 
 
 46, 
 
 12 
 
 47, 
 
 12 
 
 48, 
 
 12
 
 Sec. 
 
 49, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 50, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 51, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 52, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 53, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 54, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 55, 
 
 12 
 
 Sec. 
 
 56, 
 
 13 
 
 Sec. 
 
 57, 
 
 13 
 
 Sec. 
 
 58, 
 
 13 
 
 Sec. 
 
 59, 
 
 13 
 
 Sec. 
 
 60, 
 
 13 
 
 Sec. 
 
 61, 
 
 13 
 
 Sec. 
 
 62, 
 
 13 
 
 INDEX — CONTENTS XI 
 
 APPEALS—CONTINUED Page 
 
 Operativeness 
 
 Originality 
 
 Patentability 
 
 Priority 
 
 Reduction to Practice 
 As TO Construction of Rule 
 As TO Circumstances When Rule is Followed Sec. 
 As TO Conclusions By Different Paths 
 As TO Reversibility of Erroneous Conclusions Sec. 
 
 MANDAMUS 13 
 
 DECISIONS 
 
 As to Time Limit 
 
 As TO Not Being the Remedy 
 
 As to Remedy to Alternate With Appeal 
 
 As THE Remedy 
 
 As TO Remedy Being Final In Court of Appeal Sec. 
 
 EFFECT OF DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE COM- 
 MISSIONER 14 
 
 DECISIONS 
 
 As TO Decisions of the Court Binding Sec. 63, 14 
 
 As TO Finding of Facts of the Court Binding On 
 
 Commissioner 
 As to Dissolution 
 
 As to Rehearing Concerning Priority 
 As TO Case Re-Opened Under Unusual Circum- 
 stances 
 As TO Refusal of Patent After Appeal on 
 Priority 
 
 TIME LIMIT RULES 
 
 DECISIONS 
 
 As to Limitation of Time For Appeal 
 
 As to No Extension of Time 
 
 As to Computing Legal Holidays 
 
 As to Exception ^ 
 
 As TO Forty Days Rule 
 
 As to Commencement of Action 
 
 As to New Trial 
 
 As TO Lapse of Time In Rehearing 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS 15 
 
 DECISIONS 
 
 . As TO Court's Control of Assignment Sec. 77, 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 64, 
 
 14 
 
 Sec. 
 
 65, 
 
 14 
 
 Sec. 
 
 66, 
 
 14 
 
 Sec. 
 
 67, 
 
 14 
 
 Sec. 
 
 68, 
 
 14 
 14 
 
 Sec. 
 
 69, 
 
 14 
 
 Sec. 
 
 70, 
 
 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 71, 
 
 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 72, 
 
 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 73, 
 
 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 74, 
 
 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 75, 
 
 15 
 
 Sec. 
 
 76, 
 
 15
 
 XII INDEX — CONTENTS 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS— COiVr/N^£D Page 
 
 As TO Court Being Powerless to Direct Action 
 
 OF Executive Office Sec. 78, 15 
 As TO Court's Allowance of Writ of Error or 
 
 Appeal Sec. 79, 16 
 As TO Court's Acceptance of Commissioner's 
 
 Decision Sec. 80, 16 
 As TO Court's Discretion to Relieve Against 
 
 Default Sec. 81, 16 
 As TO Court's Power to Award Costs Sec. 82, 16 
 As TO Where Record Has No Bearing In Case Sec. 83, 16 
 As TO Res Adjudicata Based on General Assign- 
 ment OF Errors Sec. 84, 16 
 As TO Presumption of Acquiesence In Decision Sec. 85, 16 
 As TO Patentability Being Reserved Sec. 86, 16 
 As TO Time Allowance Not Prejudicial Sec. 87, 17 
 As TO Assignment of Trade-Mark Sec. 88, 17 
 As TO Consideration of Affidavit Concerning 
 
 Changes In Drawing Sec. 89, 17 
 
 As TO Verification By Attorney Sec. 90, 17 
 
 As to Preliminary Statement Sec. 91, 17
 
 PATENT PRACTICE NOTES 
 
 IN 
 
 APPEAL CASES 
 
 Court Rules 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 COURT DECISIONS MUST BE CITED IN BRIEFS 
 
 4. Whenever a decision of the Court, that has been published in the 
 official reports of the Court, shall be cited in a brief, the reference shall 
 include the volume and page of the reports wherein the same has been 
 published. 
 
 No. XXI. 
 
 APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 
 
 1. All certified copies of papers and evidence on appeal from the 
 decision of the Commissioner of Patents, authorized by section 9 of the 
 act of Congress approved February 9, 1893, shall be received by the clerk 
 of this Court, and the cases, by titling and numbering as they appear on the 
 record in the Patent Office, shall be placed on a separate docket from the 
 docket of the cases brought into this Court by appeal from the Supreme 
 Court of the District of Columbia, to be designated as the "Patent Appeal 
 Docket;" and upon filing such copies the party appellant shall deposit with 
 the clerk, or secure to be paid as demanded, an amount of money sufficient 
 to cover all legal costs and expenses of said appeal; and upon failure to 
 do so his appeal shall be dismissed. The clerk shall, under this titling of 
 the case on the docket, make brief entries of all papers filed and of all 
 proceedings had in the case. 
 
 2. The appellant, upon complying with the preceding section of this 
 rule, shall file in the case a petition addressed to the Court in which he 
 shall briefly set forth and show that he has complied with the require- 
 ments of sections 4912 and 4913 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
 States to entitle him to an appeal, and praying that his appeal may be 
 heard upon and for the reasons assigned therefor to the Commissioner; 
 and said appeal shall be taken within forty days, exclusive of Sundays and 
 
 legal holidays, from the date of the ruling or order appealed from and not
 
 I, PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL, CASES 
 
 afterwards. If the petition for an appeal and the certified copies of papers 
 and evidence on appeal mentioned in this and the preceding section of this 
 rule shall not be filed and the case fully docketed from the day upon which 
 notice of appeal is given to the Commissioner of Patents, the Commis- 
 sioner, upon such facts being brought to his attention by motion of the 
 appellee, duly served upon the appellant or his attorney, may take such 
 further proceedings in the case as may be necessary to dispose of the 
 same, as though no notice of appeal had ever been given. That this addi- 
 tion to said Rule 21 shall not go into effect and operation until and from 
 the first Monday of December next; and that a copy of said Rule 21, as 
 thus amended, be furnished by the clerk of this Court to the Commissioner 
 of Patents. 
 
 3. The clerk shall provide a minute book of his office, in which he 
 shall record every order, rule, judgment, or decree of the Court in each 
 case, in the order of time in which said proceedings shall occur; and of 
 this book the index shall be so kept as to show the name of the party 
 applying for the patent, the invention by subject matter or name, and, in 
 the cases of interference, the name of the party with whose pending appli- 
 cation or unexpired patent the subsequent application is supposed to inter- 
 fere. 
 
 4. The cases on this docket shall be called for argument on the second 
 Tuesday of January, March, May and November in each year, and the 
 cases shall be called in regular order as they may stand on the docket. A 
 copy of these rules shall be furnished to the Commissioner of Patents; 
 and it shall be the duty of the clerk of this Court to give special notice to 
 the said Commissioner at least fifteen days immediately preceding the 
 times thus respectively fixed for the hearing of said cases; the said notice 
 to name the place of the sitting of the Court, the titling of the cases on the 
 docket of this Court, the respective numbers thereof, and the number of 
 each case as it appears of record in the Patent Office; and thereupon the 
 Commissioner shall give notice to the parties interested or concerned by 
 notice addressed to them severally by mail. 
 
 5. The clerk shall furnish to any applicant a copy of any paper in any 
 of said appeals on payment of the legal fees therefor. 
 
 6. The appeals from the Commissioner of Patents shall be subject to 
 all the rules of this Court provided for other cases therein, except where 
 such rules, from the nature of the case, or by reason of special provisions 
 inconsistent therewith, are not applicable. 
 
 No. XXII. 
 
 OPINIONS OF LOWER COURT AND COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 
 MADE PART OF RECORD 
 
 Whenever the judgment, decree, or order appealed from is based upon
 
 PATENT RULES IN APPEALS 
 
 3 
 
 or has reference to a written opinion filed in the case by the court below, 
 such opinion shall constitute a part of the transcript to be sent to this 
 Court; and such opinion, and also the written reasons or grounds assigned 
 by the Commissioner of Patents in appeals from the Patent Office, shall 
 be printed as part of the record to be printed under Rule 6. 
 
 No. XXVI. 
 SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS EXCLUDED 
 
 That wherever days are mentioned in the foregoing rules as limitation 
 of time they shall be construed to exclude Sundays and legal holidays. 
 
 Instructions to Appellants 
 
 The act of Congress creating the Court of Appeals of the District of 
 Columbia, approved February 9, 1893, gives to that Court jurisdiction of 
 appeals from final decisions of the Commissioner of Patents both in ex 
 parte cases and in interference cases. 
 
 Where an appeal of either class is to be prosecuted to the Court of 
 Appeals of the District of Columbia the first step is to file with the Com- 
 missioner of Patents a notice of appeal, together with an assignment of 
 reasons of appeal. This step must be taken within forty days, exclusive 
 of Sundays and legal holidays, from the date of the decision of the Com- 
 missioner of Patents sought to be reviewed. 
 
 The next step in the prosecution of such an appeal is to file with the 
 clerk of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia a certified tran- 
 script of the record and proceedings in the Patent Office relating to the 
 case in question, together with a petition for appeal, addressed to the Court 
 of Appeals of the District of Columbia, make a deposit of $15, and have 
 the appearance of a member of the bar of that Court entered for the 
 appellant. 
 
 The notice of appeal and reasons of appeal required to be served upon 
 the Commissioner of Patents may be signed by the applicant or by his 
 attorney of record in the Patent Office, but the petition for an appeal that 
 is filed in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia must be signed 
 by a member of the bar of the Court of Appeals of the District of Colum- 
 bia, who should enter a regular appearance in the case in the clerk's 
 office. 
 
 After the petition for appeal, the certified transcript, and the docket fee 
 of $15 have been lodged in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals 
 of the District of Columbia, the clerk will send to the solicitor of record 
 an estimate of the cost of printing the petition, transcript, etc. 
 
 When the amount called for is deposited, the clerk will cause the print- 
 ing to be done under his supervision, and when the printing is completed 
 the case will be put on the calendar for hearing at the next term at which 
 patent appeals are heard.
 
 ^ PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL, CASES 
 
 In interference cases the clerk is authorized to receive printed copies of 
 the evidence, such as have been used in the Patent Office, thus saving to 
 the appellant the cost of re-printing such evidence. When such printed 
 copies are supplied, twenty-five copies must be furnished. 
 
 As above stated, the notice of appeal and the reasons of appeal are 
 required to be filed with the Commissioner of Patents within forty days 
 (exclusive of Sundays and legal holidays) of the date of the decision 
 appealed from, but the petition for appeals and the certified transcript 
 which are to be filed in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia 
 are required to be filed in that Court within forty days (exclusive of Sun- 
 days and legal holidays) from the time of giving of the notice of appeal; 
 that is to say, if the decision complained of was rendered for instance, on 
 the 1st day of July, 1896, the party aggrieved might file his notice of 
 appeal, with the reasons of appeal, at any time within forty days (exclusive 
 of Sundays and legal holidays) thereafter; but if he filed his notice of 
 appeal and reasons therefor on the 10th day of July, 1896, he would be 
 required to file his petition for appeal and the certified transcript in the 
 Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia within forty days (exclusive 
 of Sundays and legal holidays) of the 10th of July, 1896. 
 
 Powers of the Court 
 
 ACT 
 
 Sec. 1. The "Act to establish a Court of Appeals for the District of 
 Columbia, and for other purposes," approved February 9th. 1893 (27 
 Stats., 434, 436, ch. 74) as to Section 9 reads as follows: 
 
 Sec 9. That the determination of appeals from the decision 
 of the Commissioner of Patents, now vested in the General Term 
 of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in pursuance 
 of the provisions of section seven hundred and eight of the 
 Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the District of 
 Columbia, shall hereafter be and the same is hereby vested in 
 the Court of Appeals created by this act; and in addition, any 
 party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in 
 any interference case may appeal therefrom to said Court of 
 Appeals. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONALITY 
 
 Sec. 2. This act was held constitutional in United States, ex rel. Ber- 
 nardin v. Duall, Commissioner of Patents, 86 O.G. 995.
 
 POWERS OF THE COURT 5 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF INTERFERENCE IN SECTION NINE OF ACT 
 
 Sec. 3. The word "interference" in section 9 of the act establishing 
 the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia interpreted and Held 
 not to mean and include disputes in Trade-Marks under section 3 of the 
 Trade-Mark law of 188!, but to be confined to an interference in patent 
 law— Einstein v. Sawhill, 65 O.G. 1918. 
 
 RULES OF PATENT OFFICE RELATING TO APPEALS 
 
 Rule 148 
 Sec. 4. From the adverse decision of the Commissioner upon the 
 claims of an application and in interference cases, an appeal may be taken 
 to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in the manner pre- 
 scribed by the rules of that Court. 
 
 Rule 149 
 When an appeal is taken to the Court of appeals of the District of 
 Columbia, the appellant will give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and 
 file in the Patent Office, within forty days, exclusive of Sundays and 
 holidays, from the date of the decision appealed from, his reasons of 
 appeal specifically set forth in writing. 
 
 Rule 150 
 Pro forma proceedings will not be had in the Patent Office for the 
 purpose of securing to applicants an appeal to the Court of Appeals of the 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 Rule 8 
 Court Of Appeals Of The District Of Columbia 
 
 It is ordered by the Court that the order of January 9, 1908, modifying 
 Section 2, Rule 8, by limiting the time of argument to one hour on each 
 side, be, and the same is hereby, suspended until further order. 
 
 Per Mr. Chief Justice Shepard 
 Feb. 2, 1909. 
 Test: Henry W. Hodges, 
 
 Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 
 
 JURISDICTION 
 
 As To Its Scope 
 
 Sec. 5. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of the District of 
 Columbia to entertain appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner 
 of Patents in proceedings relating to patents is limited to two classes — 
 (1) Where the claims of an application for a patent or the re-issue of a 
 patent after having been twice rejected have been finally rejected on
 
 O PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL. CASES 
 
 appeal to the Commissioner in due course of proceeding. (2) Where an 
 appeal to the Commissioner in an interference proceeding there has been 
 a final decision on priority in favor of one of the parties thereto. R. S. 
 Sees. 4909, 4910, 4911; Westinghouse v. Duncan, 2 App.D.C. 8, 17, 26; 
 Union Distilling Co. v. Schneider, 29 App. D.C. 1 ; In re FuUager, 138 O.G. 
 259. 
 
 As To Appeal On A Motion To Dissolve 
 
 Sec. 6. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia has no juris- 
 diction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of 
 Patents on a motion to dissolve an interference between an appellant for 
 re-issue and an original application holding that appellant had no right 
 to a re-issue on the ground that his showing of inadvertence, accident, or 
 mistake was insufficient and that he had failed to excuse the long delay 
 of more than two years in filing the re-issue application, as such judgment 
 does not constitute an adjudication of the question of priority between 
 the parties. In re Fullagar, 138 O.G. 259. 
 
 As To Administration Of Patent Office 
 
 Sec. 7. The Court has jurisdiction of appeals from the Commissioner 
 of Patents in certain matters defined by statute, but has no original juris- 
 diction to direct and supervise the administration of the affairs of the 
 Patent Office. A petition to direct the Commissioner to allow petitioner 
 to proceed with the taking of testimony refused. DeFerranti v. Lindmark 
 137 O.G. 733, Neill v. Commissioner of Patents 82 O.G. 749. 
 
 As To Remedy In Equity 
 
 Sec. 8. The Act establishing the Court of Appeals did not by implica- 
 tion repeal the Statute providing remedy by bill in equity in a circuit court. 
 Bernardin v. Vorthall and Seymour, Commissioner of Patents 78 O.G. 
 1740. 
 
 Appeal 
 
 PARTIES 
 
 As To Appeal 
 
 Sec. 9. A motion by E. that he be made a party to an appeal to the 
 Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia taken by F. from a decision 
 of the Commissioner of Patents on a motion to dissolve holding that F. 
 had no right to make the claims of the issue because of his delay in filing 
 his re-issue application involved in this interference denied on the ground 
 that the Commissioner's decision did not result in award of priority to E., 
 and therefore F. could not bring him before the Court by an appeal. For
 
 PARTIES IN APPEALS 7 
 
 the same reasons E.'s motions to have the docket entry changed and to 
 dismiss F.'s appeal denied. In re Fullagar, 138 O.G. 259. 
 
 As To Rights Respecting Non-Appealing Parties 
 
 Sec. 10. Where an interference is declared between three parties and 
 all present testified and but one of the parties takes an appeal to the Court 
 of Appeals, the case made out by the party who has not appealed cannot 
 be considered in the determination of the controversy. Richard v. Meiss- 
 ner, 114 O.G. 1831. 
 
 FINAL DECISIONS OF COMMISSIONER 
 
 As To Final Decisions 
 
 Sec. 11. Up to the present time the Court of Appeals has entertained 
 appeals in interference cases only from the final decision of the Com- 
 missioner upon the question of priority of invention. (Allen, Commis- 
 sioner of Patents, v. The United States of America, ex rel., Lowry and 
 Planter Compress Co., 116 O.G. 2253.) DeFerranti v. Lindmark, 137 
 O.G. 731 ; Marshutz v. Commissioner of Patents, 85 O.G. 778. 
 
 As To Certain Cases 
 
 Sec. 12. The statutes give right of appeal only in cases where the 
 various tribunals of the Office acted and not when the Examiners-in-Chief 
 suggest that the issue is not patentable. Serrell v. Donnelly, 129 O.G. 
 2501. 
 
 As To Amendments 
 
 Sec. 13. Neither the rules of this Court, nor of the Patent Office, 
 mention amendments as the reason of appeals; but when made in due 
 time, to correct an assignment that may not be sufficiently specific, or some 
 inadvertance in its preparation, and no possible injury could be done to 
 the opposing party, we see no reason why it should not be permitted. 
 Horine v. Wende, 129 O.G. 2858. 
 
 SUBJECT-MATTER 
 
 As To Patentability In Interference Cases 
 
 Sec. 14. In general, the question of patentability is not open in an 
 appeal in interference cases. (Hisey v. Peter, 71 O.G. 892; Doyle v. Mc- 
 Roberts, 79 O.G. 1029.) Orcutt v. McDonald, Jr., and McDonald, 123 O.G. 
 1288; Newton v. Woodward, 93 O.G. 2320 (explaining Bechmati v. Wood, 
 89 O.G. 2320) ; Latham v. Armat, 95 O.G. 232. (See subject "Patentabil- 
 ity" in section 6.) Potter v. Mcintosh, 127 O.G. 1995; Mill v. Midgley, 
 136 O.G. 1534; Luger v. Browning, 104 O.G. 112. (Distinguishing from 
 Oliver v. Felbel, 100 O.G. 2384) ; Dodge v. Fowler, 82 O.G. 595; Doyle v. 
 McRoberts, 79 O.G. 1529.
 
 O PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL. CASES 
 
 As To Priority Being Settled Before Patentability 
 
 Sec. 15. The Court of Appeals regards it as improper for them to 
 adjudicate the question of priority before the question of patentability is 
 fully settled. Slaughter v. Halle, 102 O.G. 469. 
 
 As To Interlocutory Rulings 
 
 Sec. 16. It is well settled that this Court cannot and should not inter- 
 fere with such (interlocutory) rulings, unless perhaps in extreme cases 
 it should be necessary for the maintenance of the jurisdiction of this 
 Court. Ritter v. Krakau & Connor, Jr., 114 O.G. 1553-1554. 
 
 As To Newly Discovered Evidence 
 
 Sec. 17. The re-opening of a case for the introduction of newly dis- 
 covered evidence is a matter of discretion for the trial court, and will not 
 be reviewed by this Court. Richards v. Meissner, 114 O.G. 1831; Dunbar 
 V. Schellenger, 128 O.G. 2837; Omes v. Starr, 117 O.G. 1495. 
 
 As To Interlocutory Decisions Not Subject To Reviev^^s 
 
 Sec. 18. The decision was an interlocutory one relating to the general 
 practice of the Office (Rules 30, 31, 75) in all such cases, and the question 
 of its propriety as presented, is not necessarily involved in the decision on 
 its merits. For the reasons given in the following cases it is not the 
 subject of review: Westinghouse v. Duncan, 66 O.G. 1009; Mill, 11 App. 
 D.C. 584, 588; Frasch, 100 O.G. 1977; 192 U.S. 566; Davis v. Garrett, 123 
 O.G. 1991; Hulett v. Long, 89 O. G. 1141. 
 
 As To Descriptions Not Usually Reviewable 
 
 Sec. 19. The question whether the description in a design case is a 
 proper one is not reviewable by the Court of Appeals except in an extra- 
 ordinary case. Mygatt, 121 O.G. 1676. 
 
 As To Trade-Mark Interference 
 
 Sec. 20. A trade-mark interference declared under the act of 1881 but 
 not decided until after the passage of the act of February 20, 1905, is 
 appealable to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia under the 
 act of February 20, 1905, where the only application involved has been 
 amended to bring it under the provision of that act. Giles Remedy Com- 
 pany V. Giles, 120 O.G. 826. 
 
 As To Priority Of Invention 
 
 Sec. 21. A decision against a party on the ground that his original 
 application did not contain the inventions seems to be one of priority of 
 invention and the decision should be such as to give the unsuccessful 
 party opportunity to take an appeal in the interference to the Court of 
 Appeals and not one dissolving the interference. Pohle v. McKnight, 119 
 O.G. 2519.
 
 SUBJECT MATTER V 
 
 As To Identity Of Invention 
 Sec. 22. Question of the identity of the inventions involved proper 
 to be considered by the Court of Appeals on appeal from the final decision 
 of the Commissioner. Bechman v. Wood, 89 O.G. 2459; but see Bechman 
 V. Wood, 89 O.G. 2462. 
 
 As To Quasi-Judicial Proceedings 
 
 Sec. 23. It is only by regarding the proceedings in the Patent Office 
 as quasi-judicial in their nature that the validity of the legislation which 
 authorizes appeals to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Com- 
 missioner of Patents can be sustained. Barratt v. Duall, Commissioner of 
 Patents, 87 O.G. 1075. 
 
 As To Refusal To Consider Patentability Final 
 
 Sec. 24. A refusal to consider patentability in cases of priority does not 
 establish the conclusion that the decision of the Commissioner upon 
 questions of patentability in such cases is final and conclusive. Such 
 questions should come before the Court by regular course of appeal. 
 Breul V. Smith, 79 O.G. 153. 
 
 As To Certain Rights Of Party Considered Ancillary 
 
 Sec. 25. The right of a party to make a claim will be considered as an 
 ancillary question to be considered in awarding priority of invention. 
 United States of America, ex rel, The Newcomb Motor Company v. Moore 
 Co., 133 O.G. 1680. 
 
 As To Decisions Confined To Matters Considered By Commissioner 
 
 Sec. 26. The Court will confine its decision to the matter passed upon 
 by the Commissioner and not consider the question of abandonment, prior 
 public cases, and anticipation of the invention which have not been acted 
 on in the Patent Office. Colhoun v. Hodgson, 70 O.G. 276; Cutler v. 
 Leonard, 136 O.G. 438. 
 
 As To Additional Claim Presented 
 
 Sec. 27. Whatever practice should have been pursued in regard to the 
 additional claim presented for the first time to the Commissioner in person 
 which was neither considered nor rejected, we do not consider that we are 
 at liberty to pass upon it on this appeal. Garrett, 122 O.G. 1047. 
 
 As To Claim Considered By The Office 
 
 Sec. 28. Only claims considered by the Office will be considered by the 
 Court on appeal. As to bill in equity see Durhamy v. Seymour, Commis- 
 sioner of Patents, 71 O.G. 601; and the construction given by the Office 
 adhered to. Breul v. Smith, 78 O.G. 1906. 
 
 As To Distinction Between Rights Of Appeal And Refusal Of Patent 
 Sec. 29. The right of appeal in case of the refusal of a patent upon
 
 10 PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL CASES 
 
 the ground of non-patentability of the claim, and refusal of a patent 
 because of interference with a prior right of invention, are distinct rights. 
 The latter does not involve the former. This is clearly indicated in the 
 Revised Statutes of the United States section 49 11, and in section 9 of the 
 act of Congress of February 9, 1893, providing for the organization of 
 this Court. Hisey v. Peters, 71 O.G. 892. 
 
 As To Patentability Not Re-Considered 
 
 Sec. 30. The Court will not consider the question of patentability a 
 second time in a new application for the same subject matter. Barratt v. 
 Duall, Commissioner of Patents, 87 O.G. 1075. 
 
 As To Consideration Of Final Decisions 
 
 Sec 31. Only appeals from final decisions considered. Cross v. Phil- 
 lips, 87 O.G. 1399; Hulett v. Long, 89 O.G. 1141; Westinghouse, Jr., v. 
 Duncan, 66 O.G. 1009. 
 
 MOTIONS 
 
 As To Delay 
 
 Sec 32. A motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that it was taken 
 in bad faith for the purpose of delay will not be postponed to the final 
 hearing if a prima facie case is made out. Jones v. Starr, 1 17 O.G. 1495. 
 
 As To Appellee's Right To Have Cause Dismissed 
 Sec 33. The appellant having failed to have his cause filed and 
 docketed, on motion of the appellee the cause was docketed and dismissed. 
 Cleaveland v. Wright, 79 O.G. 886; Southall v. Seymour, Com., 79 O.G. 
 1684; McCreary v. Seymour, Com., 79 O.G. 1684; Morrissey v. Seymour, 
 Com., 79 O.G. 1684. 
 
 As To New Trial 
 
 Sec 34. Court will entertain a motion for a new trial pending an 
 appeal. Practice, Clement v. Richards v. Meissner, 111 O.G. 1627. 
 
 ORDER 
 
 As To Refusing New Trial 
 
 Sec 35. No appeal from orders refusing a new trial or rehearing. 
 Greenwood v. Dover, 109 O.G. 2172; Messinger v. Commissioner of Pat- 
 ents, 83 O.G. 1995. 
 
 RECORD 
 
 As To Content 
 Sec 36. Confined to the record made up in the Office. Heroult, 127 
 O.G. 3217.
 
 CONTENTS OF THE RECORD 11 
 
 As To Failure To Print 
 
 Sec. 37. Failure to print transcript of record is ground under Court 
 Rule for dismissing appeal. Munson v. Carper, 79 O.G. 160; Pelton v. 
 Evered, 77 O.G. 16. 
 
 As To Being Public 
 
 Sec. 38. The record of the proceedings in the Patent Office upon being 
 filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals becomes a public record. 
 Drawbaugh, 66 O.G. 1451. 
 
 RULES 
 
 As To Limitation Of Time 
 
 Sec. 39. The Court of Appeals was duly authorized by statute to make 
 rules limiting the time of appeal from the decisions of the Commissioner 
 of Patents. 77 O.G. 507. 
 
 WEIGHT GIVEN COMMISSIONER'S DECISIONS 
 
 As To The Rule Of The Conclusiveness Of Facts 
 
 Sec. 40. On questions of fact the concurrent decisions of the lower 
 tribunals will be taken as conclusive, unless the contrary is clear. 
 
 Cases Reviewed 
 
 Sec. 41. Arnold v. Tyler, 79 O.G. 156; Hisey v. Peters, 71 O.G. 892; 
 Hien v. Buhoup, 81 O.G. 2088. 
 
 Conception 
 Sec. 42. Ball v. Flora, 121 O.G. 2668. 
 
 Diligence 
 
 Sec. 43. O'Connell v. Schmidt, 122 O.G. 2065; Park v. Lewis, O.G. 
 2313. 
 
 Disclosure 
 
 Sec. 44. Ostergren v. Tripler, 95 O.G. 837; Schiipphaus v. Stevens, 
 95 O.G. 1452; Austin v. Johnson, 95 O.G. 2685; Kilboum v. Hirner, 128 
 O.G. 1689. 
 
 Employer & Employee 
 
 Sec. 45. Orcutt v. McDonald, Jr., and McDonald, 23 O.G. 1287; Ries v. 
 Kirkgaurd and Jehsen, 132 O.G. 845.
 
 12 practice notes in appeal cases 
 
 Evidence 
 
 Sec. 46. Baur v. Crone, 120 O.G. 1824; Bourn v. Hill, Jr., 123 OG 
 1284. 
 
 Identity Of Invention 
 
 Sec. 47. Bechman v. Southgate, 127 O.G. 1254; Herman v. Pullman, 
 109 O.G. 1888. But see Beals v. Finkerhiner, 82 O.G. 598. 
 
 Office Practice 
 
 5ec. 48. Ritter v. Krakau and Connor, Jr., 114 O. G. 1553; Rosell v. 
 Allen, 92 O.G. 1036. 
 
 Operativeness 
 
 Sec. 49. Stone v. Pupin, 100 O.G. 114; Duryea and White v. Rice, Jr., 
 126 O.G. 1357. 
 
 Originality 
 
 Sec. 50. Murphy v. Meissner, 1 14 O.G. 592; Cleveland v. Wilkins, 123 
 O.G. 1286. 
 
 Patentability 
 
 Sec. 51. Weber v. Barry, Jr., 117 O.G. 1494; Seeberger v. Dodge, 114 
 O.G. 2382; Beswick v. Commissioner, 91 O.G. 1437; Latham v. Armat, 
 95 O.G. 232; Munster v. Ashworth, 28 O.G. 2088; Clunies, 123 O.G. 2361 ; 
 Adams, 1 14 O.G. 2093; Dunbar v. Schellenger, 128 O.G. 2837. (See also 
 section 1 1 under "Subject Matter.") 
 
 Priority 
 Sec. 52. Clenn v. Adams, 83 O.G. 158. 
 
 Reduction To Practice 
 
 Sec. 53. Howard v. Hey, 95 O.G. 1647; Flora v. Powrie, 109 O.G. 
 2668; Esty v. Newton, 86 O.G. 799; Munster v. Ashworth, 128 O.G. 2088; 
 Richards v. Burkholder, 128 O.G. 2533; Wickers and Furlong v. McKee, 
 129 O.G. 869. 
 
 As To Construction Of Rule 
 
 Sec. 54. The rule that the concurrent decisions of the Office as to facts 
 will be followed, except in a clear case, does not mean that the Court will 
 be bound by the conclusions from such facts. O'Connell v. Schmidt, 122 
 O.G. 2065; Orcutt v. McDonald, Jr., and McDonald, 123 O.G. 705. 
 
 As To Circumstances When Rule Is Followed 
 
 Sec. 55. The rule that concurrent decisions in the Patent Office will 
 be followed, is especially applicable in a case which involves complicated 
 constructions about which the experts of the Patent Office are less liable
 
 WEIGHT GIVEN COMMISSIONER'S DECISIONS 13 
 
 to err than ourselves. Lindmark v. Hodgkinson, 137 O.G. 228; See- 
 berger v. Dodge, 114 O.G. 2382. 
 
 As To Conclusions By Different Paths 
 
 Sec. 56. That these tribunals have reached their conclusions by differ- 
 ent paths does not detract from the weight to be given to their decisions. 
 Bourn v. Hill, Jr., 123 O.G. 1284. 
 
 As To Reversability Of Erroneous Conclusions 
 
 Sec. 57. Where the facts are admitted and a mere question of law is 
 involved, the Court will not hesitate to reverse- the judgment appealed 
 from if convinced that an erroneous conclusion was reached. Woods v. 
 Poor, 130 O.G. 1313. 
 
 Mandamus 
 
 As To Time Limit . 
 
 Sec. 58. Where a party delays beyond the time limited to take his 
 appeal, mandamus will not lie to the Supreme Court to compel the Court 
 of Appeals to entertain the appeal. Hein, 79 O.G. 507. 
 
 As To Not Being The Remedy 
 
 Sec. 59. A mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals to hear appeal 
 from Commissioner on question of division not the remedy. It should be 
 to the Examiners-in-Chief in the first place. Frasch, 109 O.G. 554. 
 
 As To Remedy To Alternate With Appeal 
 
 Sec. 60. Mandamus is not alterante remedy with appeal. United 
 States, ex rel., Tuttle v. Allen, Commissioner of Patents, 126 O.G. 760. 
 
 As The Remedy 
 
 Sec. 61. Mandamus to the Commissioner on appeal to the Court, the 
 remedy where an appeal to the Board is denied. Frasch, 109 O.G. 554. 
 No appeal as to the division of an application. Frasch, 100 O.G. 1977. 
 
 As To Remedy Being Final In Court Of Appeals 
 
 Sec. 62. No appeal can be taken to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States from a decision of the Court of Appeals refusing a mandamus to 
 compel the Commissioner to register a trade-mark. The United States, ex 
 Tel., the State of South Carolina v. Seymour, Commissioner, 67 O.G. 1191.
 
 14 PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL CASES 
 
 Effect of the Decision of the Court 
 On the Commissioner 
 
 As To Decisions Of The Court Binding 
 
 Sec 63. The Commissioner is bound to follow the decision above upon 
 those points only which were raised by the appeal, and upon no other. 
 
 It is for a judge to say that a decision of the Commissioner shall be 
 affirmed or reversed, not to say that a patent shall or shall not issue. Abra- 
 ham V. Fletcher, 69 C. D. 50. 
 
 As To Finding Of Facts Of The Court Binding On Commissioner 
 
 Sec 64. The Office is bound to take notice of the decision of the Court 
 and may base its action upon the finding of facts contained therein. Tour- 
 nier, 108 O.G. 798. 
 
 As To Dissolution 
 
 Sec 65. After a decision by the Court of Appeals it is too late to dis- 
 solve for lack of interference in fact. Gilbart, 85 O.G. 454. 
 
 As To Rehearing Concerning Priority 
 
 Sec 66. It is conceivable that a case might arise where the Com- 
 missioner might grant a rehearing after a decision by the Court of Appeals 
 on the question of priority. Scott v. Brooks, 71 O.G. 1314. 
 
 As To Case Re-Opened Under Unusual Circumstances 
 
 Sec 67. After an appeal to the Court of Appeals refusing the allow- 
 ances of certain claims, a case will not be re-opened for the consideration 
 of additional claims except under unusual circumstances. That the Court 
 put an interpretation on the claims not contemplated by applicant not suf- 
 ficient. Milans, 135 O.G. 1122. 
 
 As To Refusal Of Patent After Appeal On Priority 
 
 Sec 68. After an appeal on the question of priority, the Commissioner 
 may refuse a patent to the successful party. Sobey v. Holsclaw, 126 O.G. 
 3041. 
 
 Time Limit Rules 
 
 As To Limitation Of Time For Appeal 
 
 Sec 69. This rule limits the time in which the appeal must be taken to 
 forty days from the date of the order appealed from ,excluding the day of 
 date. Burton v. Bentley, 87 O.G. 2326.
 
 TIME LIMIT RULES 15 
 
 As To No ExTENTioN Of Time 
 
 Sec. 70. The Office has no power to extend time. Clement v. Richards 
 V. Meissner, 111 O.G. 1626-7. 
 
 As To Computing Legal Holidays 
 
 Sec. 71. Saturday after 12 o'clock is a legal holiday and is to be com- 
 puted as one half day. Ocumpaugh v, Norton, 114 O.G. 545. 
 
 As To Exception 
 
 Sec. 72. A party allowed to prosecute his appeal when notice was filed 
 one day late. Proutt v. Johnston and Johnston, 130 O.G. 2118. 
 
 As To Forty Days Rule 
 
 Sec. 73. The rule that all appeals taken from the Commissioner of 
 Patents shall be taken within 40 days from the date of the ruling and not 
 afterward is a positive law to the Court and to the suitors therein. Ross 
 V. Soewer, 77 O.G. 2141; Bryant v. Seymour, Com. of Patents, 77 O.G. 
 1599. 
 
 As To Commencement Of Action 
 
 Sec. 74. The two years allowed for an action by R. S. 4894 is not 
 applicable to appeals to the Court of Appeals. 77 O.G. 1600. 
 
 As To New Trial 
 
 Sec. 75. The running of the time limited for appeal is not arrested by a 
 motion for a new trial. Ross v. Soewer, 77 O.G. 2141. 
 
 As To Lapse Of Time In Rehearing 
 
 Sec. 76. Whenever the time for appeal has gone by the time for rehear- 
 ing has elapsed with it. Scott v. Brooks, 71 O.G. 1314. 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 As To Court's Control Of Assignment 
 
 Sec. 77. The Court cannot control the description of the Commissioner 
 as to the length of argument he should permit. Sobey v. Holsclaw, 126 
 O.G. 3041. 
 
 As To Court Being Powerless To Direct Action Of Executive Officer 
 
 Sec. 78. The Court is powerless to direct the action of an executive 
 officer unless a positive legal right is being invaded by the officer where 
 the duty imposed upon him is clearly prescribed and enjoined by law. 
 The duty, however, must be so plain and pointed that the officer has no
 
 16 PRACTICE NOTES IN APPEAL. CASES 
 
 discretion left. (Merriel on Mandamus, p. 64.) Moore, Com. of Pats., 
 V. U. S. ex rel, Boyer, 138 O.G. 530. 
 
 As To Court's Allowance Of Writ Of Error Or Appeal 
 
 Sec 79. Neither writ of error or appeal will be allowed by this Court. 
 Decision not to prejudice an application to any one of the justices of the 
 Supreme Court, Rousseau v. Brown, 104 O.G. 1122. 
 
 As To Court's Acceptance Of Commissioner's Decision 
 
 Sec. 80. The two lower tribunals of the Office held that the inventions 
 were the same, and the Commissioner that they were different, the theory 
 of the Commissioner accepted without enquiry. Cushman v. Lines, 78 
 O.G. 2051. 
 
 As To Court's Discretion To Relieve Against Default 
 
 Sec. 81. Judgment in an interference proceeding will not be made 
 final by the Office after the filing of a notice of appeal, on the ground that 
 it was filed one day late, it being regarded as being within the discretion 
 of the Court to relieve against the default. Proutt v. Johnston and John- 
 ston, 130 O.G. 2718. 
 
 As To Court's Power To Award Costs 
 
 Sec. 82. The Court has no power to award costs. Wells v. Reynolds, 
 69 O.G. 1507. 
 
 As To Where Record Has No Bearing In Case 
 
 Sec. 83. When a record was introduced, but on an examination found 
 to have no bearing in the case, it must be at the cost of the one offering 
 it. Stevens v. Seher, 81 O.G. 1932. 
 
 As To Res Adjudicata Based On General Assignment Of Error 
 
 Sec. 84. A general assignment of error in appeal from the Examiner 
 to the Board is sufficient to base the question of res adjudicata upon, or 
 it might have been raised by the Board on its own motion. Carroll v. 
 Hallwood, 135 O.G. 896. 
 
 As To Presumption Of Acquiesence In Decision 
 
 Sec. 85. B. has appealed but his assignment of errors does not chal- 
 lenge the decision of the Commissioner on the question of priority of 
 invention "and to this extent he is presumed to have asquiesed in the 
 decision against him." Bechman v. Wood, 15 App.D.C. 487. 
 
 As To Patentability Being Reserved 
 
 Sec. 86. (In an interference case) "The present is no more than a 
 moot cause since upon the face of the record itself the question of pat- 
 entability has been expressly reserved for further and future consider- 
 ation." Oliver v. Felbel, 100 O.G. 2384.
 
 MISCELLANEOUS DECISIONS 17 
 
 As To Time Allowance Not Prejudicial 
 
 Sec. 87. A party may take advantage of all the time allowed by law 
 without prejudicing his case. Jones v. Starr, 117 O.G. 1495. 
 
 As To Assignment Of Trade-Mark 
 
 Sec. 88. An assignment of a trade-mark permitted after notice and 
 before appeal is perfected. Levy & Co. v. Uri, 131 O.G. 1689. 
 
 As To Consideration Of Affidavit Concerning Changes In Drawing 
 
 Sec. 89. We will not consider affidavits filed either in this Court or the 
 Patent Office relating to changes that have occurred in drawings, models, 
 experimental machines and like exhibits. These matters must be wholly 
 settled in the Patent Office. (Blackford v. Wilder, 104 O.G. 580.) Green- 
 wood v. Dover, 109 O.G. 2173; Willsin v. Bradshaw, 91 O.G. 648. 
 
 As To Verification By Attorney 
 
 Sec. 90. Affidavit verified before notary who was also attorney in the 
 case is invalid. The prohibition of attorneys acting as notaries in the Code 
 of the District applies to attorneys outside of the District. The Hall Safe 
 Co. v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 135 O.G. 1804. 
 
 As To Preliminary Statement 
 
 Sec. 91. Appeal from a decision upon the right to amend preliminary 
 statement. Cross v. Phillips, 87 O.G. 1399.
 
 PATENT CITATOR 
 
 FOR 
 
 APPEAL CASES 
 
 (Alphabetical List of Defendants on Pag:e 47) 
 
 Adams ,1 14 O.G. 2093, 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald ,123 O.G. 1288, 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis 11:^10.0.2313, 
 
 In re Clunies 123 O.G. 2631, 
 
 Adams v. Murphy , 96 O.G. 845, 
 
 Winter v. Slick v. VoU- 
 
 kommer ,107 O.G. 1660, 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton ..., 110 O.G. 1724, 
 
 Alexander v. Blackman. . .,121 O.G. 1979, 
 
 Allen, Com. of Pat., v. U. 
 S. ex rel., Regina Music 
 Box Co ,105 O.G. 747, 
 
 Allen, Com. of Pat., v. U. S. 
 ex rel., Lowry and Plant- 
 ers Compress Co ,116 O.G. 2253, 
 
 Egly V. Schultze 117 O.G. 277, 
 
 Pohle V. McKnight 119 O.G. 2521, 
 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney 120 O.G. 2129, 
 
 Noble V. Sessions 121 O.G. 1343, 
 
 Miel V. Young 121 O.G. 1350, 
 
 Lowry and Cowley v. 
 
 Spoon 122 O.G. 2688, 
 
 Browne v. Stroud 122 O.G. 2689, 
 
 Brown v. Hodgkinson ,123 O.G. 2973, 
 
 Hawkins v. Coleman v. 
 
 Thullen 133 O.G. 1188, 
 
 U. S. of Am., ex rel. the 
 
 Newcomb Moto Co. v. 
 
 Moore, Com. of Pat 133 O.G. 1682, 
 
 McKeen v. Jerdone 1.34 O.G. 2027, 
 
 Am. Circular Loom Co.. . .,126 O.G. 2191, 
 Am. Circular Loom Co.. . .,127 O.G. 393, 
 
 Am. Glue Co ,123 O.G. 999, 
 
 Am. Stove Co. v. Det. Stove 
 
 Co ,134 O.G. 2245, 
 
 McKillop V. Fetzer , 136 O.G. 1770, 
 
 Am. St. Pack Co. v. Johns- 
 
 Manville Co ,137 O.G. 978, 
 
 Natural Food Co. v. Will- 
 iams 133 O.G. 232, 
 
 Kentucky Dist. & Ware- 
 house Co. V. Old Lexing- 
 ton Club Dist. Co ,135 O.G. 220, 
 
 1905 CD. 602, 24 App.D.C. 275 
 
 1906 CD. 705, 27 App.D.C. 228 
 1906 CD. 735, 28 App.D.C. 1 
 1906 CD. 740, 28 App.D.C 18 
 
 1901 CD. 401, 18 App.D.C. 172 
 
 1903 CD. 477, 
 
 1904 CD. 207, 
 
 App.D.C. 
 24 App.D.C. 296 
 
 1906 CD. 602, 26 App.D.C 541 
 
 1903 CD. 615, 22 App.D.C. 271 
 
 1905 CD. 643, 26 App.D.C. 8 
 
 1905 CD. 237, App.D.C. 
 
 1905 CD. 549, 30 App.D.C. 92 
 
 1906 CD. 558, 26 App.D.C. 399 
 1906 CD. 119, App.D.C 
 1906 CD. 124, 29 App.D.C. 481 
 
 1906 CD. 
 1906 CD. 
 1906 CD. 
 
 224 
 226! 
 290, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 App.D.C. 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 - 
 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 ; 
 
 30 
 
 App.D.C. 
 App.D.C. 
 
 464 
 
 1906 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 446 
 1906 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 450 
 1906 CD. 695, 27 App.D.C. 391 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 31 App.D.C. 304 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 30 App.D.C 348 
 
 31 App.D.C. 223
 
 20 
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Ams 
 
 Anderson v. Wells 
 
 Andrew McLean' Co. v. Mfg 
 Co 
 
 Andrews v. Nilson 
 
 Gordon v. Wentworth , 
 
 Appert V. Schmertz. 
 
 Appert V. Schmertz.... 
 Reichenbach v. Kelley. 
 Tyler v. St. Araand.... 
 Bowen V. Hill, Jr 
 
 Arnold v. Tyler 
 
 Ascencio v. Russell 
 
 Lutz V. Lewis 
 
 Atkins & Co 
 
 McKillopp V. Fetzer.. 
 
 Austin V. Johnson 
 
 Wyman v. Donnelly.. 
 Browning. . . 
 
 Luger V. 
 
 Paul V. Johnson. 
 
 Backus etc. Co. v. Simonds 
 
 In re Hine 
 
 In re Haines 
 
 Bader v. Vajen. 
 
 Paul V. Jolmson. 
 
 Paul V. Johnson 
 
 Basch V. Hammond... 
 Hammond v. Basch... 
 Parker v. Lewis 
 
 Baker 
 
 Ball V. Flora. . . 
 
 Ball V. Flora. 
 Ball V. Flora. 
 
 127 O.G. 3644, 
 122 O.G. 3014, 
 
 1907 CD. , 29App.D.C. 91 
 1906 CD. 667, 27 App.D.C 115 
 
 136 O.G. 
 
 123 
 
 135 
 
 84 
 
 8.3 
 
 04 
 
 04 
 
 123 
 
 79 
 
 112 
 
 110 
 
 110 
 
 1.36 
 
 95 
 
 10.3 
 104 
 100 
 
 66 
 
 .58 
 01 
 
 87 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 113 
 115 
 123 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 O.G, 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 121 O.G 
 
 121 
 
 117 
 117 
 
 O.G 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 Barratt v. Duell, Com. of 
 Pat , 79 
 
 Kenney 118 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 127 
 
 Millett V. Reed 128 
 
 Barratt v. Seymour, Com. 
 of Pat , 79 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of 
 Pat , 87 
 
 Barratt v. Duell, Com. of 
 Pat 87 
 
 Barratt v. Seymour, Com. 
 of Pat 00 
 
 Rosell V. Allen , 02 
 
 Barstow Stove Co. v. Det. 
 
 Stove Works and Am. 
 
 Stove Co ,134 
 
 Battle Creek etc. v. Fuller, 134 
 Bauer v. Crone ,120 
 
 Bauer v. Crone Ill 
 
 Beals V. Finkenbiner , 82 
 
 Greenwood v. Dover 108 
 
 Barrett v. Harter 112 
 
 Blackman v. Alexander .., 113 
 Alexander v. Blackman .., 121 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 O.G, 
 O.G, 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 440, 
 
 1667, 
 
 1123, 
 
 508, 
 
 1511, 
 
 1188, 
 1070, 
 1286, 
 
 156, 
 955, 
 
 2015, 
 
 2015, 
 
 1770, 
 
 2685, 
 
 650. 
 1124, 
 
 800, 
 
 1893, 
 
 385, 
 2571, 
 
 1235, 
 
 2015, 
 
 800, 
 
 552, 
 
 806, 
 2313, 
 
 1352, 
 
 2668, 
 
 2362. 
 
 2088, 
 
 1075, 
 
 2254, 
 1256, 
 2836, 
 
 2020, 
 
 805, 
 
 1075, 
 
 1158, 
 1038, 
 
 2245, 
 
 1299, 
 1824, 
 
 1030, 
 
 549, 
 
 2144, 
 
 732, 
 
 1708, 
 
 1070, 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1008 CD. 
 
 1898 CD. 
 
 1808 CD. 
 1001 CD. 
 1001 CD. 
 1006 CD. 
 
 1897 CD. 
 1904 CD. 
 
 1004 CD. 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 1008 CD. 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 1003 CD. 
 
 1003 CD. 
 
 1004 CD. 
 
 717, 
 
 524, 
 
 524, 
 282, 
 301, 
 
 349, 
 676, 
 
 1894 
 
 1802 
 1000 
 
 1899 
 
 1003 
 1004 
 1004 
 1005 
 1006 
 
 1906 
 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1005 CD. 
 1005 CD. 
 
 391, 
 
 05, 
 
 503, 
 
 610, 
 
 211, 
 11, 
 
 102, 
 
 329, 
 
 .380. 
 610, 
 474, 
 615, 
 735, 
 
 594, 
 
 618, 
 
 280, 
 280, 
 
 31 App. 
 
 27 App. 
 
 App. 
 
 13 App. 
 
 13 App. 
 17 App. 
 
 17 App. 
 App. 
 
 10 App 
 24 App. 
 
 App. 
 
 29 App. 
 
 App. 
 
 18 App, 
 
 21 App. 
 21 App. 
 23 App. 
 
 2 App, 
 
 App, 
 App. 
 
 14 App, 
 
 App. 
 
 23 App. 
 App. 
 
 24 App. 
 
 28 App. 
 
 26 App 
 26 App 
 
 26 App. 
 26 App 
 
 D.C 509 
 ,D.C.451 
 
 D.C 
 
 D.C 117 
 
 D.C 117 
 D.C. 333 
 D.C. 464 
 D.C. 
 
 .D.C 175 
 .D.C 105 
 
 D.C 
 
 .D.C 385 
 
 D.C 
 
 D.C 83 
 
 D.C 81 
 D.C. 201 
 D.C. 187 
 
 D.C 290 
 
 D.C 
 D.C. 
 
 .D.C 241 
 
 D.C 
 
 D.C 187 
 D.C 
 
 D.C 460 
 D.C 1 
 
 .D.C 363 
 .D.C 394 
 
 D.C 304 
 D.C. 304 
 
 1899 CD. 320, 14 App.D.C 255 
 
 1005 CD. 441, App.D.C. 
 
 1007 CD. , 21 App.D.C. 1 
 
 1007 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 1897 CD. 506, 11 App.D.C. 177 
 
 1809 CD. 313, 14 App.D.C. 181 
 
 1890 CD. 320, 14 App.D.C. 255 
 
 1807 CD. 506, 11 App.D.C. 177 
 
 1900 CD. 333, 16 App.D.C. 559 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1906 CD. 545, 
 
 1004 CD. 336, 
 
 1898 CD. 326, 
 
 1004 CD. 66, 
 
 1004 CD. 302, 
 
 1003 CD. 521, 
 
 1006 CD. 602, 
 
 31 App.D.C 304 
 30 App.D.C 41 1 
 26 App.D.C 352 
 
 26 App.D.C. 352 
 
 12 App.D.C 23 
 
 23 App.D.C. 251 
 
 24 App.D.C. 300 
 26 App.D.C. 541 
 26 App.D.C. 541
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL, CASES 
 
 21 
 
 Bechman v. Southgate ,127 O.G. 1254, 
 
 Beckman v. Southgate ..., 12;{ O.G. 2309, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood , 89 O.G. 2459, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood 87 O.G. 1073, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood...' 87 O.G. 1074, 
 
 McBerty v. Cook !)0 O.G. 2295, 
 
 Newton v. Woodward 93 O.G. 2320, 
 
 Walsh V. Hallbauer 94 O.G. 224, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 
 
 Lug'er V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2383, 
 
 Scott 117 O.G. 278, 
 
 Bechman v. Southgate. ... 123 O.G. 2309, 
 
 Jansson v. Larsson 132 O.G. 477, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood , 89 O.G. 2462, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood 81 O.G. 2087, 
 
 Bender V. Hoffmann 85 O.G. 1738, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood , 87 O.G. 1073, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood 87 O.G. 1074, 
 
 Calm 87 O.G. 1397, 
 
 Calm 87 O.G. 1398, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood 89 O.G. 2459, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood 89 O.G. 2462, 
 
 McBerty v. Cook 90 O.G. 2295, 
 
 Horton v. Summer !)2 O.G. 2340. 
 
 Newton v. Woodward..., 93 O.G. 2320, 
 
 Walsh V. Hallbauer 94 O.G. 224, 
 
 Ostergren et al. v. Tripler, 95 O.G. 837, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 
 
 Luger V. Browning 100 O.G. 231, 
 
 Luger V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 
 
 Gaily V. Brand , 113 O.G. 851, 
 
 Furman v. Dean 114 O.G. 1553, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge , 114 O.G. 2383, 
 
 Scott 117 O.G. 278, 
 
 Beckman v. Southgate .... 123 O.G. 2309, 
 
 Bechman v. .Southgate ..., Iii7 O.G. 1254, 
 
 Horine v. Wende 129 O.G. 2861, 
 
 Bedford v. Duel!, Com. of 
 Pat , 87 O.G. 1611, 
 
 Bernardin v. Seymour, Com. 
 of Pat , 79 O.G. 1190, 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Bernardin v. 
 
 Duell, Com. of Pat S(> O.G. 990, 
 
 Poole v. Avery 87 O.G. 360, 
 
 Beswick v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat , 91 O.G. 436, 
 
 stone V. Pupin 100 O.G. 1114, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder ,104 O.G. 578, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 99 O.G. 2769, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 1(»4 O.G. 581, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder , lo4 O.G. 578, 
 
 Robinson v. Seelinger. . ., 114 O.G. 263, 
 
 Robin.son v. Seelinger ..., 110 O.G. 1736, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 124 O.G. 319, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 127 O.G. 12.55, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder ,104 O.G. 580, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 99 O.G. 2709, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 104 O.G. 578. 
 
 Dow v. Converse 106 O.G. 2292. 
 
 Greenwood v. Dover 109 O.G. 2173, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 124 O.G. 319, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 127 O.G. 1255, 
 
 Horine v. Wende 129 O.G. 2860. 
 
 Sherwood v. Drewson. . .. 1.30 O.G. 660, 
 
 Degen v. Pfadt 133 O.G. 514. 
 
 1906 CD 
 
 > 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C 405 
 
 1906 
 
 CD. 
 
 270, 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 405 
 
 1899 CD 
 
 453, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 .484 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 99, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 484 
 
 1899 
 
 C.U. 
 
 102, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 484 
 
 1900 
 
 CD. 
 
 248. 
 
 10 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 133 
 
 1900 
 
 CD. 
 
 400, 
 
 17 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 34 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 9, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 305, 
 
 17 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 548 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 593, 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 201 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 603. 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 470 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 4, 
 
 25 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 307 
 
 1906 
 
 CD. 
 
 270. 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 405 
 
 1907 
 
 CD. 
 
 . 
 
 30 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 203 
 
 1899 CD. 459, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C 484 
 
 1897 
 
 CD. 
 
 188. 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 484 
 
 1898 
 
 CD. 
 
 262. 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 99, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 484 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 102. 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 484 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 105, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 105, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 453, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 484 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 459, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 484 
 
 1900 
 
 CD. 
 
 248, 
 
 16 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 133 
 
 1900 
 
 CD. 
 
 152. 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1900 
 
 CD. 
 
 406. 
 
 17 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 34 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 9. 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 350, 
 
 17 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 .557 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 365, 
 
 17 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 548 
 
 1902 
 
 CD. 
 
 230, 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 201 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 593, 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 201 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 488, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 305, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 277 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 603, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 476 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 4, 
 
 25 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 307 
 
 1906 
 
 CD. 
 
 270, 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 405 
 
 1906 
 
 CD. 
 
 270, 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 405 
 
 1907 
 
 CD. 
 
 ■ 
 
 29 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 415 
 
 1899 CD 
 
 357, 
 
 14 
 
 App.D.C 376 
 
 1897 CD. 428, 10 App.D.C. 294 
 
 379 
 
 1899 CD. 
 1899 CD. 
 
 287. 
 255. 
 
 13 App.D.C 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1900 CD. 294, 16 App.D.C 345 
 
 1902 CD. 550, 19 App.D.C. 396 
 
 1903 CD 
 
 567, 21 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 
 1902 CD. 
 
 204 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 1 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 573 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 535 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 567 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 535 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 237 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 237 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 .304 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 535 
 
 1903 CD 
 
 573, 21 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 
 1902 CD. 
 
 204 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 1 
 
 1902 CD. 
 
 573 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 .535 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 404 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 00 
 
 23 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 251 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 304 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 28 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 535 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 29 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 415 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 29 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 161 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 
 
 App.D.C. 

 
 22 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Blackford V. Wilder ,104O.G. 582, 1903 CD. 578, 21 App.D.C. 1 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 99 O.G. 2769, 1902 CD. 204, 21 App.D.C. 1 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 1(J4 O.G. 578, 1903 CD. 567, 28 App.D.C. 535 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 104 O.G. 580, 1903 CD. 573, 28 App.D.C. 535 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 124 O.G. 319, 1906 CD. 304, 28 App.D.C. 535 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 127 O.G. 1255, 1907 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 535 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder ,127 O.G. 1255, 1907 CD. , 28 App.D.C 535 
 
 Becker v. Otis , 129 O.G. 1267, 1907 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 U. S. of A. ex rel., The 
 
 Newcomb Motor Co. v. 
 
 Allen, (Edward B. Moore 
 
 substituted) Com. of 
 
 Pat 130 O.G. 303, 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 464 
 
 Mattice v. Longworth. . ., 132 O.G. 678, 1907 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 135 O.G. 449, 1908 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 Bliss V. McElroy ,1280.G. 458, 1907C.D. , 29 App.D.C 120 
 
 Bluthenthal v. Beckart v. 
 
 Bigbie Bro. & Co ,130 O.G. 2068, 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 1 18 
 
 Bossart V. Pohl ,135 O.G. 453, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 218 
 
 Bourn V. Hill Jr ,123 O.G. 1284, 1906 CD. 699, 27 App.D.C. 291 
 
 Braunstein V. Holmes ,133 O.G. 1937, 1908C.D. , 30 App.D.C. 328 
 
 Breul V. Smith ,78 O.G. 1906, 1897 CD. 332, 10 App.D.C. 180 
 
 Breul V. Smith 78 O.G. 1904, 1897 CD. 3, 10 App.D.C. 180 
 
 Smith V. Warner 85 O.G. 151, 1898 CD. 213, App.D.C. 
 
 Breul V. Smith 86 O.G. 1635, 1899 CD. 44, 10 App.D.C. 180 
 
 Hance Brothers & White, 87 O.G. 698, 1899 CD. 92, App.D.C. 
 
 Tracy et al. v. Leslie 87 O.G. 891, 1899 CD. 306, 14 App.D.C. 126 
 
 Tracv et al. v. Leslie 87 O.G. 893, 1899 CD. 306, 14 App.D.C. 126 
 
 Rosell V. Allen 92 O.G. 1038, 1900 CD. 333, 16 App.D.C. 559 
 
 Breul V. Smith , 84 O.G. 809, 1898 CD. 124, App.D.C. 
 
 Breul V. Smith 86 O.G. 1635, 1S99 CD. 44, 10 App.D.C. 180 
 
 Briede ,123 O.G. 322, 1906 CD. 677, 27 App.D.C. 298 
 
 Heroult 127 O.G. 3219, 1907 CD. , 5 App.D.C. 90 
 
 Heroult , 127 O.G. 3220, 1907 CD. , 5 App.D.C. 90 
 
 Briggs V. Seymour, Com. of 
 
 Pat , 78 O.G. 169, 1897C.D.211, 9 App.D.C. 478 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat , 87 O.G. 893, 1899 CD. 313, 14 App.D.C. 181 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat , 87 O.G. 894, 1899 CD. 313, 14 App.D.C. 181 
 
 Lowry v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 88 O.G. 718, 1899 CD. 410, 14 App.D.C. 473 
 
 Brill V. Wash. R. & E. Co.J34 0.G. 1563, 1908 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 255 
 
 Brown v. Fessenden ,137 O.G. 1482, 
 
 Winslow V. Auirtin 86 O.G. 2171, 14 App.D.C. 137 
 
 Gallagher v. Hastings. .., 103 O.G. 1165, 21 App.D.C. 88 
 
 Bronson Co. V. Duell , 95 O.G. 229, 1901 CD. 330, 17 App.D.C. 471 
 
 Brown V. Blood ,105 O.G. 976, 1903 CD. 617, 22 App.D.C. 216 
 
 Brown-Forman Co. v. Dist. 
 
 Co ,1340.G. 1565, 1908C.D. , 30 App.D.C. 485 
 
 Bryant v. Seymour, Com. of 
 
 Pat ,77 O.G. 1599, 1896 CD. 648, 9 App.D.C. 447 
 
 Buchanan-Anderson-Nelson 
 
 Co. V. Breen & Kennedy, 124 O.G. 322, 1906 CD. 750, 27 App.D.C. 573 
 
 Burr V.Ford , 70 O.G. 275, 1895 CD. 120, 5 App.D.C. 26 
 
 Burson v. Vogel ,131 O.G. 942, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 388
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 23 
 
 Burton v. Bentley , 87 O.G. 2326, 1 899 CD. 393, 1 4 App.D.C. 47 1 
 
 Wliipple V. Sharpe 98 O.G. 22(5, 1902 CD. 2. App.D.C. 
 
 Busch V. Jones , 16 App.D.C. 23 
 
 Butterfield , 1 08 O.G. 1 589, 1 904 CD. 585, 23 App.D.C 84 
 
 Cahn, Belt & Co ,122 0.0. 354, 1906 CD. 627, 27 App.D.C. 173 
 
 Cahn, Belt & Company .., 118 O.G. 1930, lyo.j CD. 422, 27 App.D.C. 173 
 
 Cain V. Park 86 O.G. 797, 1899 CD. 278, 14 App.D.C. 42 
 
 Christensen v. Noyes 90 O.G. 226, 1900 CD. 212, 15 App.D.C. 91 
 
 Carroll V. Hallwood ,135 O.G. 896, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C 165 
 
 Carpenter ,112 O.G. 503, 1904 CD. 669, 24 App.D.C. 110 
 
 Chapman , 120 O.G. 244G, 1906 CD. 79, App.D.C 
 
 Carpenter 110 O.G. 2233, 1904 CD. 23.5, 24 App.D.C. 110 
 
 Carty v. Kellogg , 74 O.G. 657, 1896 CD. 188, 7 App.D.C. 542 
 
 Cartv V. Kellogg 73 O.G. 285, 1895 CD. 83, 7 App.D.C 542 
 
 Ostergren et al. v. Tripler, 95 O.G. 838, 1901 CD. 350, 17 App.D.C. 557 
 
 Haskell v. Miner v. Ball, 109 O.G. 2171, 1904 CD. 131, App.D.C. 
 Trufant v. Prindle v. 
 
 Brown ,111 O.G. 1035, 1904 CD. 282, App.D.C. 
 
 Case Bros. v. Murphy & Co., 136 O.G. 228, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 245 
 
 Chase & McKenzie ,135 O.G. 895, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 154 
 
 Cheneau v. Com. of Pat.. ., 70 O.G. 924, 1895 CD. 188, 5 App.D.C. 197 
 
 Atwater 80 O.G. 965, 1897 CD. 36, App.D.C 
 
 Cherney V. Clauss ,116 O.G. 597, 1905 CD. 635, 25 App.D.C 15 
 
 Cheney v. Clauss 115 O.G. 2137, 1904 CD. 635, 25 App.D.C. 15 
 
 Christensen v. Ellis ,940.G.2561, 1901C.D.326, 17App.D.C498 
 
 Clement v. Richards v. 
 
 Meissner 113 O.G. 1145, 1904 CD. 492, App.D.C. 
 
 Christensen V. Noyes , 90 O.G. 223, 1900 CD. 120, 15 App.D.C 94 
 
 Kelly V. Fynn 92 O.G. 1235, 1900 CD. 118, 16 App.D.C. 572 
 
 Watson V. Thoma.s 106 O.G. 1777, 1903 CD. 370, 23 App.D.C 65 
 
 Woods V. Waddell 106 O.G. 2018, 1903 CD. 391, App.D.C. 
 
 Russell V. Asencio 109 O.G. 1605, 1904 CD. 100, App.D.C 
 
 Russell V. Asencio ,109 O.G. 1607, 1904 CD. 106, App.D.C. 
 
 Dowry v. Spoon 110 O.G. 858, 1904 CD. 173, App.D.C. 
 
 Matthes V. Burt 114 O.G. 766, 1904 CD. 296, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Barber V. Wood 132 O.G. 1588, 1908 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 Christensen V. Noyes , 90 O.G. 227, 1900 CD. 212, 15 App.D.C. 94 
 
 Dowry v. Spoon 110 O.G. 858, 1904 CD. 173, App.D.C 
 
 Dutz V. Lewis 110 O.G. 2015, 19(t4 CD. 227. App.D.C. 
 
 Matthes v. Burt ,114 O.G. 766, 1904 CD. 296, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Clauss V. Cherney ,116 O.G. 635, 1905 CD. 635, 25 App.D.C. 15 
 
 Cleveland v. Wilkin ,123 O.G. 1286, 1906 CD. 703, 27 App.D.C 311 
 
 Cleveland v. Wright , 79 O.G. 866, 1897 CD. 413, 
 
 Clifford V. Rose , 31 App.D.C 195 
 
 Clifford V. Newell , 31 App.D.C. 195 
 
 Clunies ,123 O.G. 2631, 1906 CD. 740, 28 App.D.C 18 
 
 Cobb V. Goebel ,108 O.G. 1591, 1904 CD. 589, 23 App.D.C 75 
 
 Coffee V. Guerrant , 68 O.G. 279, 1894 CD. 384, 3 App.D.C. 497 
 
 Colhoun V. Hodgson , 70 O.G. 276, 1895 CD. 122, 5 App.D.C. 21 
 
 Cross V. Phillips 87 O.G. 1399, 1899 CD. 342, 14 App.D.C 228 
 
 Cross V. Phillips 87 O.G. 1400, 1899 CD. 342, 14 App.D.C. 228 
 
 Colton ,104 O.G. 577, 1903 CD. 566, 21 App.D.C. 17 
 
 Colton 101 O.G. 2285, 1902 CD. 436, 21 App.D.C. 17
 
 24 fATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Computing Scale Co. v. Au- 
 tomatic Scale Co ,119 O.G. 1586, 1905 CD. 704, 
 
 Chapman 120 O.G. 244G, 1896 CD. 79. 
 
 Corner v. Kyle , 1 1 4 O.G. 2092, 1 905 CD. 599, 
 
 Corry v. McDermott ,117 O.G. 279, 1905 CD. 668, 
 
 Corry and Baker v. Trout 
 
 V. McDermott ,110 O.G. 30G, 1904 CD. 144, 
 
 Couch V. Barnett ,110 O.G. 1 43 1 , 1 904 CD. 650, 
 
 Paul V. Hess , 115 O.G. 252, 1905 CD. 610, 
 
 O'Connell v. Schmidt 118 O.G. 589, 1905 CD. 342, 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman 118 O.G. 834, 1905 CD. 352, 
 
 Crescent Typewriter S. Co., 133 O.G. 231, 1908 CD. 
 
 American Optical Co 133 O.G. 1935, 1908 CD. 
 
 Creveling ,1 17 O.G. 1 167, 1905 CD. 684, 
 
 Bliss V. Creveling , 112 O.G. 499, 1904 CD. 381, 
 
 Croskey v. Atterbury , 76 O.G. 163, 1896 CD. 437, 
 
 Crockey v. Atterbury..., 75 O.G. 1359, 1896 CD. 9, 
 
 Kane v. Brill and Adams, 84 O.G. 1143, 1898 CD. 146, 
 
 Kasson v. Hetherington., 88 O.G. 1159, 1899 CD. 143, 
 
 Hopfelt V. Read 106 O.G. 768, 1903 CD. 319, 
 
 Haskell v. Miner v. Ball, 109 O.G. 2171, 1904 CD. 131, 
 
 Cross V. Phillips , 87 O.G. 1399, 1899 CD. 342, 
 
 Miehle v. Read 89 O.G. 354, 1899 CD. 191, 
 
 Funk V. Matteson v. 
 
 Haines 100 O.G. 1566, 1901 CD. 297, 
 
 Clement v. Richards v. 
 
 Meissner 113 O.G. 1143, 1904 CD. 492, 
 
 Richards v. Meissner 114 O.G. 1832, 1904 CD. 595, 
 
 Seeberg-er v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2384, 1905 CD. 603, 
 
 Hammond v. Basch 115 O.G. 805, 1905 CD. 615, 
 
 Hammond v. Basch 115 O.G. 806, 1905 CD. 615, 
 
 Jones V. Starr 117 O.G. 1496, 1905 CD. 694, 
 
 Neth and Tamplin v. 
 
 Ohmer 123 O.G. 999, 1906 CD. 1, 
 
 Paries v. Lewis ,123 O.G. 2313, 1906 CD. 735, 
 
 Dunbar v. Shellinger 128 O.G. 2839, 1907 CD. 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich , 132 O.G. 677, 1907 CD. 
 
 Cunningham ,102 O.G. 824, 1903 CD. 524, 
 
 Cunningham 101 O.G. 2288, 1902 CD. 442, 
 
 Cushman v. Lines , 78 O.G. 205 1 , 1 897 CD. 346, 
 
 Cushman v. Lines 77 O.G. 153, 1896 CD. 62. 
 
 Cushman v. Lines , 79 O.G. 335, 1897 CD. 346, 
 
 Tracy et al. v. Leslie 87 O.G. 893, 1899 CD. 306, 
 
 Rosell V. Allen 92 O.G. 1038, 1900 CD. 333, 
 
 Schiipphau-g v. Stevens 95 O.G. 1454, 1901 CD. 365, 
 
 Cutler V. Leonard ,136 O.G. 438, 1908 CD. 
 
 Cutler V. Hall ,135 O.G. 449, 
 
 Mason v. Hepburn 81 O.G. 147, 
 
 Thompson v. Weston , 99 O.G. 864. 
 
 Horine v. Wende 129 O.G. 2858, 
 
 Darnell v. Grant , 92 O.G. 557, 1900 CD. 329, 
 
 Dashiell v. Tasker , 1 03 O.G. 2 1 74, 1 903 CD. 55 1 , 
 
 Davenport ,1 10 O.G. 2017, 1904 CD. 653, 
 
 Davis V. Garrett , 1 23 O.G. 1 99 1 , 1 906 CD. 724, 
 
 Davis V. Garrett 112 O.G. 1211, 1904 CD. 578, 
 
 U. S. Standard Voting Ma- 
 chine Co ,130 O.G. 1486, 1907 CD. 
 
 Davis V. Horton ,136 O.G. 1768, 1908 CD. 
 
 DeFerranti v. Lyndmark. .,134 O.G. 515, 1908 CD. 
 
 DeFerranti V. Lindmark. ., 187 O.G. 731, 1908 CD. 
 
 DeFerranti v. Lindmark. ., 137 O.G. 733, 1908 CD. 
 
 DeFerranti v. Lindmark. ., 137 O.G. 732, 1908 CD. 
 
 26 App.D.C 238 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 24 App.D.C 291 
 
 25 App.D.C 305 
 
 25 App. 
 
 23 App 
 
 24 App. 
 
 27 App. 
 
 26 App, 
 
 30 App 
 
 App. 
 
 25 App, 
 
 App. 
 
 9 App. 
 
 9 App. 
 App. 
 App. 
 App. 
 App. 
 
 14 App, 
 
 18 App. 
 
 20 App.D.C. 285 
 
 App.D.C. 
 24 App.D.C. 305 
 24 App.D.C. 476 
 24 App.D.C. 469 
 24 App.D.C. 469 
 
 26 App.D.C. 64 
 
 30 App. 
 
 28 App. 
 
 29 App. 
 
 31 App. 
 
 21 App 
 
 21 App. 
 
 10 App 
 
 10 App. 
 10 App. 
 14 App. 
 
 16 App. 
 
 17 App. 
 
 31 App 
 
 D.C 305 
 
 .D.C 446 
 
 D.C 462 
 D.C. 77 
 D.C. 336 
 
 .D.C 324 
 
 D.C 
 
 .D.C 530 
 
 D.C 
 
 .D.C 207 
 
 D.C 207 
 
 D.C. 
 
 D.C. 
 
 D.C 
 
 D.C. 
 
 .D.C 228 
 
 D.C. 128 
 
 D.C. 478 
 
 D.C. 1 
 
 D.C. 129 
 
 D.C 159 
 
 .D.C 
 
 D.C 
 
 29 
 
 29 
 
 .D.C 156 
 
 D.C 156 
 D.C. 156 
 D.C 126 
 D.C. 559 
 D.C. 548 
 
 .D.C 297 
 
 13 App.D.C. 86 
 19 App.D.C. 373 
 29 App.D.C 415 
 
 16 App.D.C 589 
 21 App.D.C. 64 
 23 App.D.C. 370 
 28 App.D.C. 9 
 
 28 App.D.C. 
 
 9 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 31 App.D.C. 601 
 30 App.D.C. 417 
 
 30 App.D.C. 417 
 30 App.D.C. 417 
 30 App.D.C. 417
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 25 
 
 DeFerranti v. Lindemark. .,137 O.G. 731, 
 
 Allen, Com. of Pat., ex 
 rcl., Lowry and Plant 
 
 Comp. Co IIG O.G. 2253, 26 App.D.C. 68 
 
 Denton v. Com. of Pat...., 83 O.G. 1347, 1899 CD. 483, 12 App.D.C. 504 
 
 Holt V. Ing-prsoll , 84 O.G. 1873, 1808 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 L;uioix 13;{ O.G. 2183, 1908 CD. , .30 App.D.C. 299 
 
 DeWallace v. Scott , 88 O.G. 1 704, 1 899 CD. 416, 15 App.D.C 1 57 
 
 Christensen v. Ellis , 94 O.G. 2.563, 1901 CD. 326, 17 App.D.CSi 498 
 
 Garrels et al. v. Freeman, 103 O.G. 1684, 1903 CD. 56, 21 App.D.C- 207 
 
 Dickey v. Fleming , 83 O.G. 1348, 1898 CD. 487, 12 App.D.C 509 
 
 Dilg ,1180.G. 1067, 1905C.D. 620, 25 App.D.C 9 
 
 Dilg 112 O.G. 953, 1904 CD. 401, 25 App.D.C. 9 
 
 Dilg ,113 O.G. 547, 1904 CD. 463, 25 App.D.C 9 
 
 Dodge V. Fowler 82 O.G. 598, 1898 CD. 320, 1 1 App.D.C. 592 
 
 Fowler V. Dodge , 82 O.G. 1687, 1898 CD. 28, 14 App.D.C. 477 
 
 Fowler v. Dodge 85 O.G. 1584, 1808 CD. 257, 14 App.D.C. 477 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 113 O.G. 1417, 1904 CD. 505, 24 App.D.C 476 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2384, 1905 CD. , 24 App.D.C. 476 
 
 Draper v. Seymour, Com. of 
 
 Pat 79 O.G. 864, 1897 CD. 407, 10 App.D.C. 545 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 87 O.G. 894, 1899 CD. 313, 14 App.D.C 181 
 
 Lowry v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 88 O.G. 718, 1899 CD. 410, 14 App.D.C. 473 
 
 Drawbaugh 66 O.G. 1451, 1894 CD. 192, 2 App.D.C 404 
 
 Drawbaugh 57 O.G. 693, 1801 CD. 182, 2 App.D.C. 404 
 
 Drawbaugh 64 O.G. 155, 1893 CD. 85, 3 App.D.C 236 
 
 Drawbaugh , 67 O.G. 929, 1894 CD. 297, 3 App.D.C. 236 
 
 Drawbaugh v. Seymour, 
 
 Com. of Pat , 77 O.G. 313, 1896C.D.527, 9App.D.C219 
 
 Anderson and Dyer v. 
 
 Lowry 89 O.G. 1862, 1899 CD. 2.30, App.D.C. 
 
 Tournier ,108 O.G. 798, 1904 CD. 36, 17 App.D.C. 481 
 
 Star Distillery Company, 119 O.G. 964, 1905 CD. 493, App.D.C. 
 
 Droop ,1330.G. 517, 1908CD. , 30 App.D.C 334 
 
 Doyle V. McRoberts , 79 O.G. 1029, 1897 CD. 413, 29 App.D.C 129 
 
 Doyle V. McRoberts , 73 O.G. 139, 1895 CD. SO, 10 App.D.C. 445 
 
 Painter v. Hall 83 O.G. 1S(I6, ISOS CD. 01, App.D.C. 
 
 Esty V. Newton 86 O.G. Sno. ISOO CD. 284, 14 App.D.C. 50 
 
 Huber v. Aiken , 88 O.G. ir.iiC. ]si)i» CD. 166, App.D.C. 
 
 Newton v. Woodward 93 O.G. 2320, looo CD. 406, 17 App.D.C. 34 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 1901 CD. 365, 17 App.D.C 548 
 
 Luger V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 1904 CD. 593, 21 App.D.C 201 
 
 Duff V. Lalshaw ,136 O.G. 658, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 235 
 
 Dunbar V. Schellenger ,128 O.G. 2837, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 Dunbar v. Shellinger 113 O.G. 2213, 1904 CD. 552, 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 Dunbar v. Shellinger 121 O.G. 687, 1904 CD. 552, App.D.C. 
 
 Duncan, Pri chard & Macau- 
 ley ,1260.G.2592, 1908CD. , 28 App.D.C. 457 
 
 Durham v. Seymour, Com. 
 
 of Pat ,710.G. 601, 1895C.D.307, 6 App.D.C. 78 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 87 O.G. 895, 1899 CD. 313, 14 App.D.C. 181 
 
 Hummel v. Tingley 90 O.G. 060, 1900 CD. 22, App.D.C. 
 
 McNeil , 100 O.G. 2178, 1902 CD. 563, 2 App.D.C. 294 
 
 Beck 105 O.G. 1781, 1903 CD. 277, App.D.C. 
 
 Robin V. Muller and Bon- 
 net 113 O.G. 2506, 1004 CD. 571, App.D.C 
 
 Garrett 122 O.G. 1048, 1906 CD. , 27 App.D.C. 19
 
 26 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Durkee Jr. v. Winquist et 
 
 al ,136 0.G. 229, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 248 
 
 Duryea & White v. Rice, Jr.,126 O.G. 1357, 1906 CD. , 28 App.D.C 423 
 
 Spitteler and Krische 134 O.G. 1302, 1008 CD. 31 Ann D C '>71 
 
 Maroni v. Shoemaker 131 O.G. 1940, 1907 CD. , App!d!c " 
 
 Eastman V. Houston , 95 O.G. 2064, 1901CD.386, 18App.D.C135 
 
 Eastman v. Houston 87 O.G. 113, 1899 CD. , App.D.C 
 
 Eastman v. Houston 95 O.G. 2064, 1901 O.G. 386, 18 App.D.C 135 
 
 Pupin V. Hutin and Le- 
 
 blanc V. Stone . . . ., 100 O.G. 934. 1902 CD. 269, App.D.C 
 
 Harris v. Stern and Lotz, 105 O.G. 260, 1903 CD. 207, 22 App.D.C 164 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard 106 O.G. 1240, 1903 CD. 335, App.D.C 
 
 Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Far- 
 row ,93 O.G. 1312, 1900 CD. 389, 23 App.D.C. 411 
 
 Edison 133 O.G. 1190, 1908 CD. , 2 App.D.C. 10 
 
 Edna Smelting Co. v. Mfg. 
 Co ,1350.G. 664, 1908C.D. , 30 App.D.C. 487 
 
 Ehret V. Star Brew. Co...., 136 O.G. 1533, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C 507 
 
 Ehret v. Star Brewing Co., 136 O.G. 1533, 
 
 In re Indian Portland Ce- 
 ment Co 134 O.G. 518. 1908 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 468 
 
 Einstein V. Sawhill ,680.G.1918, 1893CD.677, 2 App.D.C. 10 
 
 Sherwood v. Horton, Cato 
 
 & Company 84 O.G. 2018, 1898 CD. 629, App.D.C 
 
 Sherwood v. Horton, Cato 
 
 & Company 84 O.G. 2020, 1898 CD. 629, App.D.C. 
 
 Esty V. Newton , 86 O.G. 799, 1899 CD. 284, 14 App.D.C 50 
 
 Thomson v. Weston 94 O.G. 986, 1901 CD. 24, 19 App.D.C. 373 
 
 Tyler v. St. Amand 94 O.G. 1970, 1901 CD. 301, 17 App.D.C. 464 
 
 Howard v. Hey , 95 O.G. 1648, 1901 CD. 375, 18 App.D.C. 142 
 
 Oliver v. Felbel 100 O.G. 2176, 1902 CD. 315, 20 App.D.C. 255 
 
 Oliver v. Pelbel 100 O.G. 2384, 1902 CD. 565, 20 App.D.C. 255 
 
 Brown v. Blood ,105 O.G. 977, 1903 CD. 224, 22 App.D.C 216 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard ,106 O.G. 1241, 1903 CD. 335, App.D.C 
 
 Thomas v. Trissel , 107 O.G. 267, 1903 CD. 408, App.D.C. 
 
 Winter v. Slick v. Voll- 
 
 kommer 107 O.G. 1660, 1903 CD. 477, App.D.C. 
 
 Smith V. Brooks ,112 O.G. 955, 1904 CD. 223, 24 App.D.C. 75 
 
 Matthes v. Burt 114 O.G. 766, 1904 CD. 296, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Funk et al. v. Whitely . ., 117 O.G. 280, 1905 CD. 34, 25 App.D.C 313 
 
 Bourn v. Hill, Jr ,123 O.G. 1285, 1906 CD. 699, 21 App.D.C. 291 
 
 Ex parte Union Carbide f 135 O.G. 450, 29 App.D.C. 1 18 
 
 Company | 135 O.G. 451, 
 
 In re Hopkins 128 O.G. 980, 29 App.D.C. 118 
 
 Crescent Typewriting- Sup- 
 ply Co 133 O.G. 81, 30 App.D.C 324 
 
 Kentucky Dist. & W. Co. 
 v. Old Lex. Club Dist. 
 Co ,138 O.G. 222. 31 App.D.C. 223 
 
 Ex parte Hartley ,136 O.G. 1767, 
 
 Nielson v. Bradshaw 91 O.G. 644, 16 App.D.C. 92 
 
 Ex parte U. S. Sanitary Mfg. 
 
 Co ,137 O.G. 227, 
 
 Cahn, Belt & Co 122 O.G. 354. 27 App.D.C 173 
 
 Ex parte Reiss ,137 O.G. 1712, 
 
 Allen, Com. of Pat., v. U. 
 
 S. Lowry & Plant. Comp. 
 
 Co 110 O.G. 2253, 26 App.D.C. 8 
 
 Men V. Midg-ley 136 O.G. 15.34. 31 App.D.C. 534 
 
 Ex parte Curtis , 1 38 O.G. 767, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 127 O.G. 1255, 28 App.D.C. 535
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 27 
 
 Ex parte C. S. Sisson Co. 
 
 in re Am. Cir. Loom Co 
 
 Faber 
 
 Fay V. Duell, Com. of Pat, 
 
 Ex parte Kinney. 
 Millett V. Heed. 
 
 Fefel V. Stocker. 
 
 Thomson v. Weston 
 
 Tyler v. St. Amand 
 
 Howard v. Hey 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard 
 
 Winter v. Slick v. Voll 
 
 kommer 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton... 
 
 Paul V. Hess 
 
 Gilman v. Brown v. Hin 
 
 son 
 
 Fordyce v. Stoetzel 
 
 Feinberg v. Cowan, 
 Fenner v. Blake. . , 
 
 Flather v. Weber. 
 
 Weber v. Flather 
 
 Blackman v. Alexander. . 
 
 Flora V. Powrie 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr 
 and McDonald 
 
 Forg 
 
 Foster v. Antisdel. 
 
 Prindle 
 
 Triifant 
 
 Brown 
 Garrels et al. v. Freeman 
 
 Luger V. Browning 
 
 Blood V. Brown 
 
 Brown V. Blood 
 
 Herman v. Fullman 
 
 Herman v. Fullman 
 
 Trufant v. Prindle v 
 
 Brown 
 
 Prindle v. Brown 
 
 Bauer v. Crone 
 
 Dunbar v. Shellinger . . . . 
 Dunbar v. Shellinger . . . . 
 Howard v. Bowes 
 
 Fowler v. Boyce 
 
 Fowler v. Boyce 
 
 Fowler V. Boyce 
 
 Fowler v. Dodge 
 
 Rosell V. Allen 
 
 Fowler v. Dodge.... 
 Fowler v. Dodge.... 
 Fowler v. Dodge.... 
 
 Fowler v. Dyson 
 
 Fowler v. McBerty 
 
 Frasch 
 
 Ex parte Frasch 
 
 Ex parte Frasch 
 
 Ex parte Frasch 
 
 Ex parte Frasch 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich. 
 
 Frasch 
 
 138 O.G. 528, 
 
 127 O.G. .•{•):5, 
 
 136 O.G. 229, 
 90 O.G. 1157, 
 
 118 O.G. 22.->4, 
 
 128 O.G. 2836, 
 
 94 O.G. 433, 
 
 94 O.G. 087, 
 
 94 O.G. 197(1. 
 
 9.5 O.G. 1648, 
 
 106 O.G. 1241. 
 
 107 O.G. 1660, 
 110 O.G. 1724, 
 115 O.G. 252, 
 
 122 O.G. 733, 
 130 O.G. 2373, 
 
 128 O.G. 889, 
 134 O.G. 2244, 
 104 O.G. 312, 
 
 103 O.G. 223. 
 113 O.G. 1708, 
 
 109 O.G. 2443, 
 
 123 O.G. 1288, 
 
 66 O.G. 515, 
 88 O.G. 1527, 
 
 28 App.D.C. 450 
 
 31 App.D.C. 531 
 15 App.D.C. 515 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 18 App.D.C. 186 
 
 17 App.D.C. 317 
 
 19 App.D.C. 373 
 
 17 App.D.C. 464 
 
 18 App.D.C. 142 
 App.D.C. 
 
 App.D.C. 
 24 App.D.C. 296 
 24 App.D.C. 462 
 
 26 App.D.C. 409 
 App.D.C. 
 
 29 App.D.C. 80 
 
 20 App.D.C. 507 
 
 21 App.D.C. 179 
 
 App.D.C. 
 26 App.D.C. 541 
 
 1904 CD. 636, 23 App.D.C. 195 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1900 CD. 232, 
 
 1905 CD. 441. 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1901 CD. 269, 
 
 1901 CD. 24, 
 1901 CD. 301, 
 1901 CD. 375, 
 1903 CD. 335, 
 
 1903 CD. 477, 
 
 1904 CD. 207, 
 
 1905 CD. 610, 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1903 CD. 561, 
 
 1903 CD. 70, 
 1903 CD. 521, 
 
 1906 CD. 705, 
 
 1894 CD. 138, 
 1899 CD. 413, 
 
 101 
 
 O.G. 
 
 1608, 
 
 1902 
 
 CD. 
 
 397, 
 
 103 
 
 0.(}. 
 
 1684, 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 56, 
 
 104 
 
 O.G. 
 
 1124, 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 593, 
 
 105 
 
 ().(i. 
 
 498, 
 
 1903 
 
 CI). 
 
 224, 
 
 105 
 
 o.a. 
 
 977, 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 224, 
 
 107 
 
 O.G. 
 
 1097, 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 452, 
 
 109 
 
 O.G. 
 
 1888, 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 625, 
 
 111 
 
 O.G. 
 
 1036, 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 282, 
 
 112 
 
 0.(J. 
 
 958, 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 680, 
 
 118 
 
 O.CJ. 
 
 1072, 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 378, 
 
 121 
 
 0.(J. 
 
 2664, 
 
 1906 
 
 C.D. 
 
 147, 
 
 128 
 
 ().(?. 
 
 2839. 
 
 1907 
 
 C.D. 
 
 ^ 
 
 137 
 
 O.G. 
 
 733, 
 
 1908 
 
 C.D. 
 
 
 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 2 App.D.C 58 
 14 App.D.C. 552 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 21 App.D.C. 207 
 
 21 App.D.C. 201 
 
 22 App.D.C. 216 
 
 22 App.D.C. 216 
 
 23 App.D.C. 259 
 
 23 App.D.C. 259 
 
 24 App.D.C. 114 
 24 App.D.C. 114 
 26 App.D.C. 352 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 31 App.D.C. 619 
 
 121 O.G. 1014, 1906 CD. 580, 27 App.D.C. 48 
 
 27 App.D.C. 55 
 
 122 O.G. 1726, 
 
 118 O.G. 2534, 
 
 87 O.G. 895, 
 
 92 O.G. 1038, 
 
 78 O.G. 2045, 
 
 82 O.G. 1687. 
 
 85 O.G. 1584, 
 
 121 O.G. 1015, 
 
 121 O.G. 1015, 
 100 O.G. 1977, 
 
 91 O.G. 459, 
 
 109 O.G. 1338, 
 
 98 O.G. 1967, 
 
 109 O.G. 554, 
 
 1.34 O.G. 1808, 
 
 122 O.G. 1043, 
 
 1906 C.D. 659, 
 
 1905 C.D. 446, 
 
 1899 C.D. 316, 
 
 1900 C.D. 333, 
 
 1897 C.D. 8, 
 
 1898 C.D. 28, 
 1898 C.D. 259, 
 
 1906 C.D. 583, 
 
 1906 C.D. 585, 
 1902 C.D. 560, 
 
 1900 C.D. 50, 
 
 1904 C.D. 104, 
 
 1902 C.D. 65, 
 
 1904 C.D. 104, 
 1908 C.D. 
 
 27 App.D.C. 55 
 
 14 App.D.C 477 
 
 16 App.D.C. 559 
 14 App.D.C. 477 
 14 App.D.C. 477 
 14 App.D.C. 477 
 
 27 App.D.C 52 
 27 App.D.C. 41 
 20 App.D.C. 301 
 
 20 App.D.C. 298 
 27 App.D.C. 25 
 20 App.D.C. 298 
 27 App.D.C. 25 
 31 App.D.C. 159 
 
 1906 CD. 648, 27 App.D.C 25
 
 28 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL, CASES 
 
 Freeman ,109 O.G. 1339, 1904 CD. 619, 
 
 Freeman ,104 O.G. 1396, 1903 CD. 172. 
 
 Goldsmith 110 O.G. 310, 1904 CD. 1-52, 
 
 Mygatt 117 O.G. .599, 1905 CD. 24.3, 
 
 Myg-att 121 O.G. 1677, 1905 CD. 596, 
 
 French v. Halcomb ,120 O.G. 1824, 1906 CD. 547, 
 
 French v. Halcomb 110 O.G. 1727, 1904 CD. 218, 
 
 Funk V. Haines ,100 O.G. 1766, 1902 CD. 559, 
 
 Funk V. Matte.son v. 
 
 Haines 100 O.G. 1764, 1902 CD. 553, 
 
 Funk V. Matteson v. 
 
 Haines 100 O.G. 1563, 1901 CD. 297, 
 
 Funk V. Matteson v. Haines,100 O.G. 1764, 1902 CD. 553, 
 
 Pihl V. Mersman ,106 O.G. 1776, 1903 CD. 367, 
 
 Watson V. Thomas 106 O.G. 1778, 1903 CD. 370, 
 
 Gilnian v. Brown and Hin- 
 
 son 122 O.G. 733, 1906 CD. 634, 
 
 Funk V. Whitely ,117 O.G. 280, 1905 CD. 570, 
 
 Furman v. Dean ,114 O.G. 1552, 1905 CD. 582, 
 
 Furman v. Dean Ill O.G. 1366, 1904 CD. 305, 
 
 Pohle V. McKnight 119 O.G. 2521, 1905 CD. 
 
 Fordyce v. Stoetzel 130 O.G. 2372, 1907 CD. 
 
 Gaines & Co. v. Carlton Co., 123 O.G. 1994, 1906 CD. 73 
 
 Buchanan -Anderson- 
 Nelson Co. V. Breen and 
 
 Kennedy ,124 O.G. 322, 1906 CD. 750, 
 
 Gaines & Co. v, Knecht & 
 
 Son 123 O.G. 657, 1906 CD. 690, 
 
 W. A. Gaines & Co. v. Carl- 
 ton Importation Com- 
 pany 123 O.G. 1994, 1906 CD. 35, 
 
 Gallagher v. Hastings , 1 03 O.G. 1 1 65, 1 903,C.D. 53 1 , 
 
 Garrels et al. v. Freeman, 103 O.G. 1684, 1903 CD. 56, 
 
 Gallagher v. Hastings. .., 103 O.G. 425, 1903 CD. 83, 
 
 Granger v. Richardson 110 O.G. 1726, 1904 CD. 211, 
 
 Jackson v. Summerfleld. ., 112 O.G. 1213, 1904 CD. 403, 
 
 French v. Halcomb 115 O.G. 508. 1905 CD. 81, 
 
 Corry et al. v. McDermott, 117 O.G. 280, 1905 CD. 668, 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald 118 O.G. 592, 1905 CD. 348, 
 
 Alexander v. Blackman . ., 121 O.G. 1981, 1906 CD. 602, 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald ,123 O.G. 1288, 1906 CD. 705, 
 
 Gallagher V. Hien 114 O.G. 545, 1905 CD. 569, 
 
 Gallagher, Jr., v. Hien ....,115 O.G. 1 330, 1 905 CD. 624, 
 
 Seeberger v. Russel 117 O.G. 2087, 1905 CD. 28.3, 
 
 Bauer v. Crone ,118 O.G. 1072, 1905 CD. 378, 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman ,121 O.G. 1352, 1905 CD. 352, 
 
 Seeberger v. Russel ,121 O.G. 2329, 1905 CD. 28.3, 
 
 Andrew.s v. Nilson 123 O.G. 1668, 1906 CD. 717, 
 
 Dunbar v. Shellenger 128 O.G. 2840, 1907 CD. 
 
 Garrels v. Freeman ,103 O.G. 1683, 1903 CD. 542, 
 
 Freeman v. Garrels and 
 
 Kimball 102 O.G. 1777, 1903 CD. 56, 
 
 Kletzker and Gorsel v. 
 
 Dodson 109 O.G. 1337, 1904 CD. 100, 
 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnernev 118 O.G. 836, 1905 CD. 358, 
 
 French v. Halcomb 120 O.G. 1826, 1906 CD. 547, 
 
 Podle.sak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnernev ,120 O.G. 2129, 1906 CD. 558, 
 
 Hamm V. Black 132 O.G. 842, 1907 CD. 
 
 Garrett ,122 O.G. 1047, 1906 CD. 645, 
 
 23 App. 
 
 23 App. 
 
 App. 
 
 26 App. 
 
 26 App. 
 
 26 App, 
 
 26 App. 
 
 D.C 226 
 
 D.C 226 
 D.C. 
 
 D.C. 366 
 D.C 366 
 
 .D.C 307 
 
 D.C 307 
 
 20 App.D.C 293 
 
 20 App. 
 20 App. 
 
 20 App 
 
 App. 
 
 23 App. 
 
 26 App. 
 
 25 App 
 
 24 App 
 
 24 App. 
 App. 
 App. 
 
 D.C 285 
 D.C. 285 
 
 .D.C 285 
 
 D.C. 
 D.C. 65 
 
 D.C. 409 
 
 .D.C 313 
 .D.C 277 
 
 D.C 277 
 
 D.C. 
 
 D.C. 
 
 1, 27 App.D.C 571 
 
 27 App.D.C. 573 
 
 27 App.D.C. 530 
 
 27 App.D.C. 571 
 
 21 App.D.C. 88 
 
 21 App.D.C. 207 
 21 App.D.C. 88 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 26 App.D.C. 307 
 
 25 App.D.C. 305 
 
 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 26 App.D.C. 541 
 
 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 25 App.D.C 77 
 
 25 App.D.C. 88 
 
 26 App.D.C. .344 
 26 App.D.C. 352 
 26 App.D.C. 336 
 
 26 App.D.C. 344 
 
 27 App.D.C. 451 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 21 App.D.C 207 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 26 App.D.C. 307 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 App.D.C. 
 
 27 App.D.C 19
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL. CASES 29 
 
 Gedge V. Cromwell ,980.G.1486, 1902C.D.514, 19 App.D.C. 192 
 
 Weber v. Flather lOH O.G. '2-27, 1!I08 CD. 70, App.D.C. 
 
 Hastings v. Gallagher lOS O.G. 428, VMKi CD. 83, 'Jl App.D.C. 88 
 
 Garrel.s et al. v. Freeman, KCi O.G. 1684, 1!)(»3 CD. .50, 21 App.D.C. 207 
 
 Granger v. Richardson. .., 110 O.G. 1726, 1004 CD. 211, App.D.C. 
 
 Jackson v. Summerfleld. ., 112 O.G. 1218, 1904 CD. 402, App.D.C. 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald 118 O.G. 592, 190r> CD. 348. 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 Larkin v. Richardson 122 O.G. 2391, 1906 CD. 209, 28 App.D.C. 471 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald , 12.S O.G. 1288. 1906 CD. 70.5, 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 Gibbons v. Peller ,127 O.G. 3643, 1907 C.D. , 28 App.D.C. 530 
 
 Gibbons v. Peller 124 O.G. 624, 190() C.D. 314. 28 App.D.C. 530 
 
 Giles Remedy Co. v. Giles, 120 O.G. 1826, 1906 C.D. 552, 26 App.D.C. 382 
 
 Bluthenthal and Bickart v. 
 Bigbie Brothers & Com- 
 pany 130 O.G. 2069, 1907 C.D. , 30 App.D.C. 118 
 
 Gilman & Brown V. Hinson,122 O.G. 731, 1906C.D.634, 26 App.D.C. 409 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. 
 
 McKee 129 O.G. 872, 1907 C.D. , 29 App.D.C. 4 
 
 Glenn V. Adams , 83 O.G. 158, 1898 C.D. 407, 12 App.D.C. 175 
 
 Howard v. Hey 95 O.G. 1648, 1901 C.D. 375, 18 App.D.C. 142 
 
 Glidden V. Noble , 71 O.G. 141, 1895 C.D. 273, 5 App.D.C. 480 
 
 Fowler v. Dodge S2 O.G. 1689, 1898 C.D. 28, 14 App.D.C. 477 
 
 Swihart v. Mauldin , 99 O.G. 666, 1902 C.D. 137, 19 App.D.C. 570 
 
 Traver v. Brown , 86 O.G. 1326, 1899 C.D. 296, 14 App.D.C. 34 
 
 Gilman and Brown v. Hin- 
 
 son ,122 O.G. 733, 1906 C.D. 634, 26 App.D.C. 409 
 
 Goolman V. Hobart ,135 O.G. 1123, 1908C.D. , 31 App.D.C. 285 
 
 Gordon V. Wentworth ,135 O.G. 1 125, 1908 C.D. , 31 App.D.C. 150 
 
 Gordon v. Wentworth 120 O.G. 1165, 1906 C.D. 52, App.D.C. 
 
 /- „ r- A ( 136 O.G. 228, 
 
 Graves V. Gunder | 136 O.G. 227, 
 
 standard Underground 
 
 Cable Co 123 O.G. 656, 27 App.D.C. 320 
 
 Greenwood V. Dover ,109 O.G. 2172, 1904 C.D. 630, 23 App.D.C. 251 
 
 Barrett v. Harter ,112 O.G. 732, 1904 C.D. 392, 24 App.D.C. 300 
 
 Robinson v. Seelinger 114 O.G. 263, 1904 C.D. , 25 App.D.C. 237 
 
 Harter v. Barrett 114 O.G. 976, 1904 C.D. 392, 24 App.D.C. 300 
 
 French v. Halcomb 115 O.G. 508, 1905 C.D. 218, 26 App.D.C. 307 
 
 Griggin v. Swenson , 89 O.G. 919, 1899 C.D. 440, 15 App.D.C. 135 
 
 Griffin v. Swenson 91 O.G. 819, 1900 C.D. , 15 App.D.C. 135 
 
 Christensen v. Ellis 94 O.G. 2563, 1901 C.D. 326, 17 App.D.C. 498 
 
 Woods V. Poor 130 O.G. 1314, 1907 C.D. , 29 App.D.C 397 
 
 Griswold v. Seymour, Com. 
 
 of Pat , 78 O.G. 482, 1897 C.D. 248, 9 App.D.C. 496 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat , 87 O.G. 894, 1899 C.D. 313, 14 App.D.C. 181 
 
 GuenifFit, Benoit & Nicault 
 
 V. Wictorsohn ,134 O.G. 779, 1908 C.D. , 30 App.D.C. 432 
 
 Gueniffet, Benoit and Ni- 
 cault V. Wictorsohn. .., 117 O.G. 1492, 1904 CD. 112, 30 App.D.C. 432 
 
 Guilbert V. Kellinger , 84 O.G. 313, 1898C.D.522, 13 App.D.C. 107 
 
 Guilbert v. Killinger 82 O.G. 1561, 1898 C.D. 26, 13 App.D.C 107 
 
 Estey V. Newton , S6 O.G. 8()0, 1899 C.D. 284, 14 App.D.C. 50 
 
 Traver v. Brown 86 O.G. 1326, 1899 C.D. 296, 14 App.D.C. 34 
 
 Gilman and Brown v. Hin- 
 
 son ,122 O.G. 733, 1906 C.D. 6.34, 26 App.D.C. 409 
 
 Lewis and Williams v. 
 
 Cronemeyer 130 O.G. 302, 1907 C.D. , 29 App.D.C. 174 
 
 Hall & Ruckel V. Ingram. .,126 O.G. 759, 1907 C.D. , 28 App.D.C. 454
 
 30 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Hall's Safe Co. v. H. H. M. 
 
 Co ,135 O.G. 1804, 1908 CD. 
 
 Kallwood V. Lalor ,103 O.G. 2173, 1903 CD. 549, 
 
 Hallwood V. Lalor v. 
 
 Bockhoff 103 O.G. 887, 1903 CD. 109, 
 
 Norden v. Spaulding 114 O.G. 1829, 1904 CD. 439, 
 
 Hammond V. Basch ,115 0.0. 804, 1905 CD. 615, 
 
 Fowler v. Boyce ,122 O.G. 1726, 1906 CD. 659, 
 
 O'Connell v. Schmidt 122 O.G. 2066, 1906 CD. 662, 
 
 Lowrie v. Taylor and Tay- 123 O.G. 1666, 1906 CD. 722, 
 
 lor 123 O.G. 2314, 1906 CD. 735, 
 
 Parkes v. Lewi.s , 
 
 Dunbar v. Schellenger . . ., 128 O.G. 2839, 1907 CD. 
 
 Howell, Jr., v. Hess ,132 O.G. 1075, 1907 CD. 
 
 Hansen V. Dean ,129 O.G. 483, 1907 CD. 
 
 Harris v. Stern & Lotz 1 05 O.G. 746, 1 903 CD. 6 1 2, 
 
 Harris v. Stern and Lotz, 101 O.G. 1132, 1902 CD. 386, 
 
 Harris v. Stern and Lotz, 1()5 0,G. 259, 1903 CD. 207, 
 
 Paul V. Hess , 113 O.G. 848, 1904 CD. 478, 
 
 Harter v. Barrett ,114 O.G. 975, 1905 CD. 578, 
 
 Hawley ,121 O.G. 691, 1906 D.C 576, 
 
 Hayes ,123 O.G. 1000, 1906 CD. 697, 
 
 Henry v. Doble , 1 22 O.G. 1 398, 1 906 CD. 654, 
 
 Herbst Importing Co ,134 O.G. 1565, 1908 CD. 
 
 Herman v. Pullman ,109 O.G. 1888, 1904 CD. 625, 
 
 MacMulkin v. Bollee 130 O.G. 1691, 1907 CD. 
 
 Heroult ,127 O.G. 3217, 1907 CD. 
 
 Heroult V. Com. of Pat.. .., 70O.G. 784, 1895CD.177, 
 
 Hien V. Pungs , 78 O.G. 484, 1897 CD. 253, 
 
 Hien v. Pungs 77 O.G. 1600, 1896 CD. 649, 
 
 Hien v. Pungs 68 O.G. 657, 1894 CD. 92, 
 
 Atwater 80 O.G. 965. 1897 CD. 36, 
 
 Atwater 80 O.G. 966, 1897 CD. 36, 
 
 Bechman v. Wood 81 O.G. 2087, 1897 CD. 188, 
 
 Hien v. Buhoup , 81 O.G. 2088, 1897 CD. 772, 
 
 Hein V. Buhoup 81 O.G. 2988, 1897 CD. 190, 
 
 Howard v. Hey 95 O.G. 1648, 1901 CD. 375, 
 
 Slaughter v. Halle , 09 O.G. 2774, 1902 CD. 210, 
 
 Donnelly v. Wvman 103 O.G. 658, 1903 CD. 95, 
 
 Thomas v. Trissel 107 O.G. 267, 1903 CD. 408, 
 
 Brooks V. Smith 110 O.G. 2014, 1904 CD. 223, 
 
 Hill ,121 O.G. 340, 1906 CD. 572, 
 
 Hill V. Hodge , 83 O.G. 1211, 1899 CD. 480, 
 
 Painter v. Hall 83 O.G. 1806, 1898 CD. 91, 
 
 Ruete V. El well 87 O.G. 2122, 1899 CD. 379, 
 
 Rosell V. Allen 92 O.G. 1088, 1900 CD. 333, 
 
 Pchiipphaus v. Stevens 95 O.G. 1454, 1901 CD. 365, 
 
 Carey v. The New Home 
 Sewing Machine Com- 
 pany 97 O.G. 1172, 1901 CD. 165, 
 
 Meigs, Hughes and Stout 
 
 V. Gerdom ,116 O.G. 1184, 1905 CD. 188, 
 
 Gueniffet, Benoit and Ni- 
 
 cault V. Wictorsohn. . ., 1.34 O.G. 256, 1908 CD. 
 
 Hill V. Parmelee , 78 O.G. 170, 1897 CD. 214, 
 
 Hillard v. Brooks ,111 O.G. 302, 1904 CD. 658, 
 
 31 App.D.C. 498 
 21 App.D.C 61 
 
 21 App.D.C 61 
 24 App.D.C. 286 
 
 24 App.D.C 469 
 
 27 App.D.C. 48 
 
 27 App.D.C. 77 
 
 27 App.D.C. 522 
 
 28 App.D.C. 1 
 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 30 App.D.C. 194 
 
 29 App.D.C 112 
 
 22 App, 
 
 22 App. 
 22 App. 
 24 App. 
 
 24 App 
 
 26 App 
 
 27 App 
 
 .D.C 164 
 
 D.C. 164 
 D.C 164 
 D.C. 462 
 
 .D.C 300 
 .D.C 324 
 .D.C 393 
 
 27 App.D.C 33 
 30 App.D.C. 297 
 
 23 App.D.C 259 
 
 30 App.D.C. 112 
 
 5 App.D.C 
 
 , 90 
 
 29 App.D.C. 
 
 . 42 
 
 9 App.D.C 492 
 
 9 App.D.C. 492 
 9 App.D.C. 492 
 App.D.C. 
 App.D.C. 
 15 App.D.C 484 
 
 1 1 App.D.C 
 
 11 App.D.C 
 18 App.D.C. 
 21 App.D.C 
 21 App.D.C. 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 .293 
 
 293 
 
 142 
 
 19 
 
 81 
 
 26 App.D.C 
 
 .318 
 
 12 App.D.C 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 15 App.D.C. 
 
 16 App.D.C. 
 
 17 App.D.C. 
 
 .528 
 
 21 
 559 
 548 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 
 13 App.D.C. 
 
 107 
 
 9 App.D.C 
 
 .503 
 
 23 App.D.C 
 
 .526
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 31 
 
 Hisey v. Peters , 71 O.G. 892, 
 
 Arnold v. Tyler 79 O.G. 157, 
 
 Doyle V. McRoberts 7!) O.G. 1030, 
 
 Doyle V. McRoberts 79 O.G. 1034, 
 
 Painter v. Hall S3 O.G. 1806b, 
 
 Estey V. Newton 8() O.G. 800, 
 
 Tracv et al. v. Leslie...., 87 O.G. 893, 
 
 Rosell V. Allen 92 O.G. 1038, 
 
 Newton v. Woodward 93 O.G. 2320, 
 
 Latham v. Armat 9."> O.G. 233, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 9."> O.G. 14.54, 
 
 Howard v. Hey 95 O.G. 1648, 
 
 Garrels et al. v. Freeman. 103 O.G. 1684, 
 
 Luger V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 
 
 Brown v. Hill. Jr 123 O.G. 1285, 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald 123 O.G. 1288, 
 
 Potter V. Mcintosh 127 O.G. 1996, 
 
 Hodges ,128 O.G. 887, 
 
 Hoey ,127 0.0.2817, 
 
 Hope, jr., V. Voight ,115 O.G. 1 585, 
 
 Hopkins ,128 O.G. 890, 
 
 Hopkins 125 O.G. 670, 
 
 Union Carbide Co ,135 O.G. 450, 
 
 Hopkins v. Newman , 1 34 O.G. 2028, 
 
 Horine v. Wende ,129 O.G. 2858, 
 
 Wende v. Horine 130 O.G. 1311, 
 
 Howard v. Bowes ,137 O.G. 1126, 
 
 Howard v. Hey , 95 O.G. 1647, 
 
 Howard v. Hey 86 O.G. 184, 
 
 Brown v. Hill, Jr 123 O.G. 1285, 
 
 „ „ , u \ 132 O.G. 1074, 
 
 Howell Jr. v. Hess 
 
 Huebel v. Bernard , 90 O.G. 75 1 , 
 
 Hastings v. Gallagher 103 O.G. 427, 
 
 Granger v. Richardson .., 110 O.G. 1726, 
 Neth and Tamplin v. Oh- 
 
 mer and Ohmer v. Oh- 
 
 mer 135 O.G. 664, 
 
 Hulett V. Long , 89 O.G. 1141, 
 
 Huber v. Aiken 88 O.G. 1525, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2383, 
 
 Jones V. Starr ,117 O.G. 1496, 
 
 Hunt V. McCaslin , 79 O.G. 86 1 , 
 
 Estey V. Newton , 86 O.G. 800, 
 
 Hunter v. Stikeman , 85 O.G. 610, 
 
 Kasson v. Hetherington . .. 88 O.G. 1160, 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al.. 88 O.G. 1706, 
 
 Kellv V. Flynn 92 O.G. 1234, 
 
 Reichenbach v. Kellev 94 O.G. 1186. 
 
 Swihart v. Mauldin 99 O.G. 666, 
 
 Paul V. Hess 113 O.G. 848, 
 
 Guett V. Tregoning 114 O.G. 544, 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. 
 
 McKee 129 O.G. 872, 
 
 Sherwood v. Drewsen . . . ., i;'.o O.G. 660, 
 Howell, Jr., v. Hess 132 O.G. 1075, 
 
 Indian Portland Cement Co. 134 O.G. 518, 
 Ingersoll v. Holt , 90 O.G. 2507, 
 
 1895 CD. 
 
 349, 
 
 6App.D.C. 68 
 
 1897 CD. 
 
 349, 
 
 10 App.D.C 175 
 
 1897 CD. 
 
 413, 
 
 10 App.D.C 445 
 
 1897 CD. 
 
 413, 
 
 10 App.D.C. 445 
 
 1898 CD. 
 
 91, 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 284, 
 
 14 App.D.C. 50 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 306, 
 
 14 App.D.C. 126 
 
 1900 CD. 
 
 333, 
 
 16 App.D.C. 559 
 
 1900 CD. 
 
 406, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 34 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 337, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 345 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 365, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 548 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 375, 
 
 18 App.D.C. 142 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 56, 
 
 21 App.D.C. 207 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 593, 
 
 21 App.D.C 201 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 699, 
 
 21 App.D.C. 291 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 705, 
 
 27 App.D.C. 288 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 183, 
 
 28 App.D.C. 510 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 28 App.D.C 525 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 
 28 App.D.C. 416 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 629, 
 
 29 App.D.C. 22 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 29 App.D.C 118 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 452, 
 
 29 App.D.C. 118 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 
 30 App.D.C 402 
 
 1907,C.D. 
 
 
 29 App.D.C 415 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 
 31 App.D.C 619 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 ,375, 
 
 18 App.D.C. 142 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 8, 
 
 18 App.D.C. 142 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 699, 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1908-C.D, 
 
 
 30 App.D.C 194 
 28 App.D.C 167 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 223, 
 
 15 App.D.C 510 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 83, 
 
 21 App.D.C. 291 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 211, 
 
 21 App.D.C. 88 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 
 30 App.D.C. 478 
 
 1899 CD, 
 
 ,416, 
 
 15 App.D.C 284 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 166, 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 365, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 548 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 505, 
 
 24 App.D.C. 476 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 694, 
 
 26 App.D.C. 64 
 
 1897 CD, 
 
 .401, 
 
 10 App.D.C 527 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 284, 
 
 14 App.D.C. 50 
 
 1898 CD, 
 
 .564, 
 
 13 App.D.C 214 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 143, 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 416, 
 
 15 App.D.C. 157 
 
 1900 CD. 
 
 118, 
 
 16 App.D.C. 573 
 
 1901 CD. 
 
 282, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 333 
 
 1902 CD. 
 
 137, 
 
 19 App.D.C. 570 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 478, 
 
 24 App.D.C. 462 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 23, 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 29 App.D.C. 4 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 
 29 App.D.C 161 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 30 App.D.C. 194 
 
 1908 CD 
 
 > 
 
 30 App.D.C. 463 
 
 1900 CD 
 
 .253, 
 
 15 App.D.C. 519
 
 32 
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL, CASES 
 
 In re Fullagar ,138 O.G. 259, 
 
 Westinghouse v. Duncan, 66 O.G. 1009, 
 
 Allen V. Lowrie 116 O.G. 2253, 
 
 Union Di.st. Co. v. 
 
 Schneider 
 
 Podlesak v. Mclnnerney . ., 120 O.G. 2127, 
 
 Iwan , 95 O.G. 441 
 
 Jackson v. Getz , 91 O.G. 1036 
 
 Jackson v. Knapp , 91 O.G. 1034 
 
 Donnelly v. Wyman , 103 O.G. 659. 
 
 Jansson v. Larsson ,132 O.G. 477 
 
 Jenner v. Dickson ,117 O.G. 600 
 
 Johnson v. Mueser , 
 
 Jones V. Starr ,117 O.G. 1495 
 
 Jones V. Starr Ill O.G. 2221, 
 
 Jones & Taylor v. Cooke. .,117 O.G. 1493 
 
 Kelly V. Fynn , 92 O.G. 1237 
 
 Kempshall v. Royce ,129 0..G3162 
 
 Kentucky Dist. Co. v. Old 
 
 Co ,138 O.G. 222 
 
 1689 
 
 729, 
 1841, 
 
 Kilbourn v. Hirner ,128 
 
 Kilbourn v. Hirner ,122 
 
 Kilbourn v. Hirner ,124 
 
 Kinsman v. Kintner. 
 Kinsman v. Strohm . . 
 
 Kinsman v. Strohm. 
 Kinsman v. Strolim. 
 
 Klemm 
 
 Klemm 
 
 Weber and Barry, 
 
 Krea? v. Geen 
 
 Jr. 
 
 ,136 
 ,136 
 
 ,120 
 , 125 
 
 ,103 
 
 , 102 
 , 111 
 
 ,127 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 
 1532 
 1769 
 
 2127, 
 1699, 
 
 1682 
 
 1553, 
 
 2220, 
 
 1581 
 
 Laas & Sponenburg v. Scott, 122 O.G. 352 
 
 Lowrie v. Taylor and Tay 
 lor 
 
 Lacroix , 
 
 LaFlare v. Chase , 
 
 LaFlare v. Chase , 
 
 Miles V. Todd 
 
 Blackman v. Alexander. ., 
 
 Lane v. Levi , 
 
 Larkin v. Richardson , 
 
 Latham v. Armat 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens.. 
 
 Luger V. Browning 
 
 Paul V. Hess 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 and McDonald 
 
 123 
 
 133 
 
 74 
 
 72 
 112 
 113 
 
 104 
 
 127 
 95 
 
 95 
 104 
 115 
 
 123 
 
 Lattig & Goodrum v. Dean, 117 
 
 111 
 
 115 
 
 ,114 
 
 , 112 
 ,119 
 
 Lattig and Goodrum v. / 
 Dean ( 
 
 Lemp V. Mudge 
 
 Lemp V. Mudge 
 
 Pohle V. McKnight. 
 
 O.G. 1665, 
 
 O.G. 2181 
 O.G. 1738 
 
 O.G. 741, 
 O.G. 1480, 
 O.G. 1708b, 
 
 O.G. 1898 
 O.G. 2394 
 O.G. 232 
 
 O.G. 1454, 
 O.G. 1124, 
 O.G. 252, 
 
 O.G. 1288, 
 
 O.G. 1789, 
 O.G. 301, 
 O.G. 505, 
 
 O.G. 763, 
 
 O.G. 727, 
 O.G. 2520, 
 
 1894 CD. 170, 
 1905 CD. 643, 
 
 1906 CD. 558, 
 
 1901 CD. 344 
 1900 CD. 284 
 1900 CD. 281 
 
 1903 CD. 95, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 1905 CD. 672 
 
 1905 CD. 694 
 
 1904 CD. 344, 
 
 1905 CD. 689 
 1900 CD. 339 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 161, 
 1906 CD. 367, 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 481, 
 1906 CD. 481, 
 
 1903 CD. 540 
 
 1903 CD. 54, 
 
 1904 CD. 693, 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 621 
 
 1906 CD. 722, 
 
 1908 
 1896 
 
 1895 
 1904 
 1904 
 
 2 App.D.C 132 
 26 App.D.C. 8 
 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 285 
 
 CD. 32, 
 CD. 420, 
 CD. 521, 
 
 1903 
 
 1908 
 1901 
 
 1901 
 1904 
 1905 
 
 CD. 601 
 CD. 
 CD. 337 
 
 CD. 365, 
 CD. .593, 
 CD. 610, 
 
 26 App. 
 
 17App 
 16 App 
 16 App 
 
 21 App. 
 
 30 App 
 
 25 App 
 29 App 
 
 26 App 
 
 26 App. 
 
 25 App 
 16 App 
 29 App 
 
 31 App 
 29 App 
 
 29 App. 
 
 29 App. 
 
 31 App 
 31 App 
 
 31 App. 
 31 App. 
 
 21 App 
 
 21 App. 
 
 26 App. 
 
 28 App 
 26 App 
 
 14 App, 
 
 30 App. 
 8 App, 
 
 8 App. 
 
 App. 
 
 26 App. 
 
 1906 CD. 705, 
 
 1905 CD. 698, 
 
 1904 CD. 255, 
 1904 CD. 255, 
 
 1905 CD. 571, 
 
 1904 CD. 387, 
 
 1905 CD. 549, 
 
 D.C 399 
 
 .D.C 566 
 .D.C 343 
 .D.C 338 
 
 D.C 81 
 
 .D.C 203 
 .D.C 316 
 D.C 661 
 D.C 64 
 
 D.C 64 
 
 D.C 524 
 D.C 573 
 .D.C 181 
 
 .D.C 223 
 .D.C 54 
 
 D.C 
 D.C. 
 
 54 
 54 
 
 .D.C 293 
 .D.C 581 
 
 D.C 581 
 D.C. 581 
 
 .D.C 186 
 
 D.C 186 
 D.C. 29 
 
 .D.C 437 
 .D.C 361 
 
 D.C 473 
 
 .D.C 299 
 .D.C 83 
 
 D.C 83 
 D.C 
 D.C. 541 
 
 •D.C 168 
 
 21 App 
 
 28 App.D.C. 471 
 
 17 App, 
 
 17 App. 
 21 App. 
 24 App. 
 
 .D.C 345 
 
 D.C 548 
 D.C. 201 
 D.C. 462 
 
 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 25 App.D.C 591 
 
 25 App.D.C 501 
 25 App.D.C. .591 
 
 24 App.D.C 282 
 
 24 App.D.C. 282 
 App.D.C.
 
 Patent citator for appeal cases 33 
 
 Levy & Co. V. Uri ,135 0.0.1361, 1907 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 441 
 
 L. W. Levy & Co. v. Uri. l.'il O.G. 1688, 1907 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 441 
 
 Hansen v. Inland Type 
 
 Foundry 134 O.G. 776, 1908 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 Lewis & Williams v. Crone- 
 
 meyer ,130O.G. 300, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C 174 
 
 Liberman V. Williams ,109 O.G. 1610, 1904 CD. 623, 23 App.D.C 223 
 
 Lindemeyer V. Hoffman..., 95 O.G. 838, 1901 CD. 353, 18 App.D.C 1 
 
 Lindmark V. Hodgkinson..,137 0.G. 228, 1908C.D. , 31App.D.C.612 
 
 Lloyd V. Antisdel ,95 O.G. 1645, 1901 CD. 371, 17 App.D.C. 490 
 
 Locke , 94 O.G. 432, 1901 CD. 267, 17 App.D.C. 314 
 
 Locke V. Boch ,93 O.G. 1722, 1900 CD. 399, 17 App.D.C. 75 
 
 Loomis V. Hauser , 99 O.G. 1 172, 1902 CD. 530, 19 App.D.C 401 
 
 Loomis V. Hauser 99 O.G. 448, 1902 CD. 131, 19 App.D.C 401 
 
 Mattlies V. Burt Ill O.G. 1364, 1904 CD. 296, 24 App.D.C 26.5 
 
 Paul V. Hess li;> O.G. 252, 190.J CD. 610, 24 App.D.C. 462 
 
 O'Connell v. St-hmidt IIH O.G. 589, 1905 CD. 342, 27 App.D.C 77 
 
 Lotterhand v. Hanson. .. .,1 10 O.G. 861, 1904 CD. 646, 23 App.D.C 373 
 
 Lotterhand v. Hanson 108 O.G. 799, 1904 CD. 39, 23 App.D.C. 372 
 
 Taylor, Jr 114 O.G. 1265, 1903 CD. 461, 31 App.D.C. 529 
 
 Maroni v. Shoemaker 131 O.G. 1940, 1907 CD. , App.D.C 
 
 Hamm v. Black , 132 O.G. 842, 1907 CD. , App.D.C 
 
 Lotz V. Kenney ,135 O.G. 1801, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 205 
 
 Lowrie v. Taylor & Taylor,123 O.G. 1665, 1906 CD. 713, 27 App.D.C. 522 
 
 Taylor and Taylor v. 
 
 Lowrie 123 O.G. 1991. 1906 CD. 722, 27 App.D.C. 527 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich 132 O.G. 677, 1907 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 159 
 
 Lowry v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat ,88 O.G. 717, 1899 CD. 410, 14 App.D.C. 473 
 
 Luger V. Browning ,104 O.G. 1 123, 1903 CD. 593, 21 App.D.C. 201 
 
 Luger V. Browning loo O.G. 231, 1902 CD. 230, 21 App.D.C. 201 
 
 Woods V. Waddell 106 O.G. 2018, 1903 CD. 391, App.D.C. 
 
 Gaily V. Brand 113 O.G. 851, 1904 CD. 488, App.D.C. 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2383, 1904 CD. 505, 24 App.D.C. 476 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald 123 O.G. 1288, 1906 CD. 705, 27 App.D.C. 288 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis 123 O.G. 2313, 1906 CD. 735, 28 App.D.C. 1 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich 134 O.G. 1807, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 159 
 
 Lotz V. Kenny 135 O.G. 1803, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 205 
 
 Macdonald V. Edison ,105 O.G. 1263, 1903 CD. 622, 21 App.D.C. 527 
 
 MacDonald v. Edison ,105 O.G. 973. 1903 CD. 243, 21 App.D.C. 527 
 
 MacDonald v. Edison ln5 O.G. 1263, 1903 CD. 622, 21 App.D.C. 527 
 
 Paul V. Hess 115 O.G. 252, 1905 CD. 610, 24 App.D.C 462 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman 118 O.G. 834, 1905 CD. 352, 26 App.D.C. 336 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman 121 O.G. 1.351, 1906 CD. 588, 26 App.D.C. 3.36 
 
 Dunbar v. Schellanger 128 O.G. 2840, 1907 CD. . 29 App.D.C 129 
 
 MacMuIkin v. Bollee ,130 O.G. 1691, 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C 112 
 
 Mark Cross Co ,116 O.G. 2534, 1 905 CD. 658, 26 App.D.C. 1 1 
 
 Mark Cross Company 116 O.G. 1723, 1905 CD. 203, 26 App.D.C. lol 
 
 Marsden v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat ,87 O.G. 1239, 1899 CD. 339, 14 App.D.C. 223 
 
 Marshutz V. Com. of Pat..., 85 0.G. 778, 1898C.D.578, 13App.D.C.236 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich 134 O.G. 1808, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 159 
 
 Martin V. Martin & Co...., 122 O.G. 734, 1906 CD. 642, 27 App.D.C 59 
 
 Bass. Ratcliff & Gretton, 
 Lim., V. Hartmann 
 
 Brewing Company .121 O.G. 2328. 1906 CD. 143, App.D.C.
 
 34 
 
 PATENT ClTATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Marvel v. Decker , 86 O.G. 348, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge ,114 O.G. 2384, 
 
 Mason ,136 O.G. 441, 
 
 Mason v. Hepburn , 84 O.G. 147, 
 
 Cain V. Park 86 O.G. 790, 
 
 Estey V. Newton 80 O.G. 800, 
 
 Davis V. Forsyth and For- 
 syth 87 O.G. 516. 
 
 Davis V. Forsyth and For- 
 syth 87 O.G. 517, 
 
 Ruete V. Elwell 87 O.G. 2121, 
 
 Mower v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 88 O.G. 192, 
 
 Kasson v. Hetherington. ., 88 O.G. 1160, 
 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al. ., 88 O.G. 1706, 
 
 Thomson v. Weston 94 O.G. 986, 
 
 Reichenbach v. Kelley..., 94 O.G. 1188, 
 
 Loomis v. Hauser , 99 O.G. 449, 
 
 Grassmith , 1(»0 O.G. 2175, 
 
 Oliver v. Felbel loo O.G. 2386, 
 
 Blood V. Brown 105 O.G. 498, 
 
 MacDonald v. Edison ...., 105 O.G. 975, 
 
 Brown v. Blood lo5 O.G. 977, 
 
 Quist v. Ostrom loO O.G. 1507, 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard 106 O.G. 1241, 
 
 Thomas v. Trissel 107 O.G. 266, 
 
 Shaffer v. Dolan 107 O.G. 540, 
 
 Winter v. Slick v. Voll- 
 
 kommer ,107 O.G. 1660, 
 
 Couch v. Burnett llo O.G. 1432, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt Ill O.G. 1364, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt Ill O.G. 1305, 
 
 Lemp v. Mudge 112 O.G. 728, 
 
 Smith V. Brooks 112 O.G. 955, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt , 114 O.G. 766, 
 
 Paul v. Hess , 115 O.G. 252, 
 
 Hammond v. Bascli 115 O.G. 806, 
 
 Gallagher, Jr., v. Hien 115 O.G. 1330, 
 
 O'Connell v. Schmidt ...., 118 O.G. 589, 
 Oilman and Brown v. Hin- 
 
 son 118 O.G. 1934, 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman 121 O.G. 1351, 
 
 Wilder 128 O.G. 4.55, 
 
 Bliss V. McElroy 128 O.G. 4,59, 
 
 Fordyce v. Stoetzel ,130 O.G. 2373, 
 
 Cutler V. Hall 135 O.G. 449, 
 
 Howard v. Bowes 137 O.G. 735, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt ,1 14 O.G. 764, 
 
 Matthes V. Burt Ill O.G. 136.3, 
 
 Bliss V. McElroy. , 128 O.G. 460, 
 
 Gordon v. Wetnworth 135 O.G. 1126, 
 
 Howard v. Bowes 137 O.G. 735, 
 
 McArthur v. Mygatt ,136 O.G. 661, 
 
 McBerty v. Cook , 90 O.G. 2295, 
 
 Felbel V. Oliver 02 O.G. 2340, 
 
 Thomson v. Weston 94 O.G. 986, 
 
 Ostergren v. Tripler , 95 O.G. 838, 
 
 Oliver v. Felbel 100 O.G. 2386, 
 
 Luger V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 
 
 Brown v. Blood 105 O.G. 977, 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard , 106 O.G. 1241, 
 
 Thomas v. Trissel 107 O.G. 267, 
 
 Smith V. Brooks ,112 O.G. 955, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt , 114 O.G. 766, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge ,114 O.G. 2383, 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman. 121 O.G. 1351, 
 
 Ball V. Flora ,121 O.G. 2668, 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich 134 O.G. 1807, 
 
 Lotz V. Kenny 135 O.G. 1803, 
 
 1899 CD. 271, 
 
 1905 CD. 603, 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1898 CD. 510, 
 
 1899 CD. 278, 
 1899 CD. 284, 
 
 13App.D.C562 
 
 24 App.D.C 476 
 
 31 App.D.C 539 
 
 13 App.D.C 86 
 
 14 App.D.C. 42 
 14 App.D.C 50 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 79, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 80, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 379, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 21 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 395, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 144 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 143, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1899 
 
 CD. 
 
 416, 
 
 15 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1,57 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 24, 
 
 10 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 373 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 282, 
 
 17 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 333 
 
 1902 
 
 CD. 
 
 131, 
 
 19 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 401 
 
 1901 
 
 CD. 
 
 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 
 1002 
 
 CD. 
 
 565, 
 
 20 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 255 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 224, 
 
 o-> 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 216 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 243, 
 
 21 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 .527 
 
 1003 
 
 CD. 
 
 224, 
 
 •>o 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 216 
 
 1003 
 
 CD. 
 
 348, 
 
 23 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 69 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 335, 
 
 23 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 .526 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 408, 
 
 23 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 219 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 422, 
 
 23 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 19 
 
 1903 
 
 CD. 
 
 477, 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 650, 
 
 23 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 446 
 
 1004 
 
 CD. 
 
 206, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 265 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 206. 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 265 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 387, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 282 
 
 1904 
 
 CD. 
 
 672, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 75 
 
 1905 
 
 CM). 
 
 574. 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 205 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 610. 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 462 
 
 1905 
 
 (M). 
 
 615. 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 460 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 624. 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 206 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 342, 
 
 27 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 77 
 
 1905 
 
 CD. 
 
 414, 
 
 26 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 400 
 
 1906 
 
 CD. 
 
 588, 
 
 26 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 336 
 
 1907 
 
 CD. 
 
 1 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1007 
 
 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 29 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 120 
 
 1907 
 
 CD. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 
 1908 
 
 CD. 
 
 J 
 
 31 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 297 
 
 1008 
 
 CD. 
 
 • 
 
 31 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 619 
 
 1905 CD 
 
 .574, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 :. 26 
 
 1004 
 
 CD. 
 
 206, 
 
 24 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 265 
 
 1907 
 
 CD. 
 
 
 29 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 120 
 
 1008 
 
 (M). 
 
 
 31 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 150 
 
 1008 
 
 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 31 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 019 
 
 : 908 CD. 
 
 31 App.D.C 514 
 
 1900 CD. 
 
 .248, 
 
 16 App.D.C 
 
 ;. 13 
 
 1900 CD. 
 
 150, 
 
 20 App.D.C 
 
 255 
 
 1001 CD. 
 
 24, 
 
 10 App.D.C. 
 
 373 
 
 1001 CD. 
 
 3.50, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 
 
 55V 
 
 1902 CD. 
 
 565, 
 
 20 App.D.C. 
 
 255 
 
 1004 CD. 
 
 503, 
 
 21 App.D.C 
 
 201 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 224. 
 
 22 App.D.C 
 
 216 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 335. 
 
 23 App.D.C. 
 
 526 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 408. 
 
 23 App.D.C. 
 
 219 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 672, 
 
 24 App.D.C 
 
 75 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 574. 
 
 24 App.D.C. 
 
 265 
 
 1005 CD. 
 
 603, 
 
 24 App.D.C 
 
 476 
 
 1005 CD. 
 
 588. 
 
 26 App.D.C. 
 
 330 
 
 1006 CD. 
 
 618, 
 
 26 App.D.C. 
 
 394 
 
 1008 CD. 
 
 
 31 App.D.C. 
 
 159 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 31 App.D.C 
 
 205
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 35 
 
 McCormick V. Cleal ,83 0.G. 1514, 1898 CD. 492, 12 App.D.C. 335 
 
 McCormick v. Cleal 80 O.G. 1014, 1897 CD. 5.-.. 12 App.D.C. ."..•{.j 
 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al. ., 8S O.G. 1700, 1899 CD. 410. 15 App.D.C ir)7 
 
 Woodward v. Newton , 92 O.G. 881, 1900 CD. ;{81, 17 App.D.C. ;{4 
 
 Chlstensen v. Ellis , 94 O.G. 2562. 1901 CD. 326, 17 App.D.C. 498 
 
 Swihart v. Mauklin 99 O.G. 666, 1902 CD. 137, 19 App.D.C. 570 
 
 Clement v. Richards v. 
 
 Meissner 113 O.G. 1145, 1904 CD. 492. 24 App.D.C. .-505 
 
 Seeberg-er v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2384, 1905 CD. 603, 24 App.D.C 470 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis ,120 O.G. 2444, 1900 CD. 732, 27 App.D.C. 507 
 
 Kempshall v. Royse 129 O.G. 3103, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C 181 
 
 McCormick v. Hallwood. .,130 O.G. 1487, 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C 106 
 
 McCreery v. Seymour, C ( 79 O.G. 1684, 1898 CD. 480, 12 App.D.C. 517 
 
 of Pat 1 83 O.G. 1210, 1898 CD. 478, 12 App.D.C. 517 
 
 Mcllhenny's Son v. N. I. E. 
 
 T. P. Co ,133 O.G. 995, 1908 CD. , 30 App.D.C 337 
 
 Hansen v. Inland Type 
 
 Foundry 134 O.G. 775, 1908 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 Battle Creek etc. v. Ful- 
 ler ,134 O.G. 1300, 1908 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 411 
 
 McKenzie v. Cummings. .,1 12 O.G. 1481, 1905 CD. 683, 24 App.D.C. 137 
 
 McKillop V. Fetzer ,136 O.G. 1770, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 58G 
 
 McKnight V. Pohle ,130 O.G. 2070, 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 92 
 
 McKnight v. Pohl & Croas- 
 
 dale ,105 O.G. 977, 1905 CD. 619, 22 App.D.C 219 
 
 Pohle V. McKnight 119 O.G. 2520, 1905 CD. 549, 30 App.D.C. 92 
 
 McKnight v. Pohle 130 O.G. 2070, 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 92 
 
 McNeil ,100O.G.2178, 1902C.D. 563, 20 App.D.C 294 
 
 McNeil 100 O.G. 1970, 1902 CD. 313, 20 App.D.C. 294 
 
 Lahue lOlO.G. 449, 1902 CD. 357, App.D.C. 
 
 Hawley 121 O.G. 692, 1906 CD. 576, 26 App.D.C. 324 
 
 McNeil & Sturtevant ,126 O.G. 3425, 1906 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 461 
 
 Mead v. Davis & Varney. .,136 O.G. 2001, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 590 
 
 Mell V. Midgley ,136 O.G. 1534, 1908CD. , 31 App.D.C. 534 
 
 Mergenthaler v. Scudder. .,81 O.G. 1417, 1897 CD. 724, 1 1 App.D.C. 264 
 
 Winslow V. Austin 86 O.G. 2172, 1899 CD. 301, 14 App.D.C. 137 
 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al., 88 O.G. 1705, 1899 CD. 416, 15 App.D.C. 157 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al.., 88 O.G. 706, 1899 CD. 416, 15 App.D.C. 157 
 Reichenbach v. Kelley..., 94 O.G. 1186, 1901 CD. 282, 17 App.D.C. 333 
 Garrells et al. v. Freeman, 103 O.G. 1684, 1903 CD. 56, 21 App.D.C. 207 
 Ritter v. Krakau and Con- 
 ner, Jr ,111 O.G. 1936. 1904 CD. 325. 24 App.D.C. 271 
 
 Barrett v. Harter 112 O.G. 730, 1904 CD. 392, 24 App.D.C. 300 
 
 Messinger v. Com. of Pat., 83 O.G. 1995, 1898 CD. 506, 12 App.D.C 532 
 
 Laughlin and Reuleaux.., 92 O.G. 2004, 1900 CD. 145, App.D.C 
 
 Blackman v. Alexander .., 105 O.G. 200O, 1903 CD. 288. 20 App.D.C. 541 
 
 Meyer V. Rothe , 84 O.G. 649, 1898 CD. 534, 13 App.D.C. 97 
 
 Meyer v. Sarfert ,102 O.G. 1555, 1903 CD. 529, 21 App.D.C 26 
 
 Meyer v. Sarfert 90 O.G. 1037, 1901 CD. 91, 21 App.D.C. 26 
 
 French v. Halcomb 115 O.G. 500, 1905 CD. 547. 26 App.D.C. 307 
 
 Lewis and Williams v. 
 
 Cronemeyer ,130 O.G. 302, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 174 
 
 Michigan Condensed Milk 
 
 Co. V. Kenneweg Co....,135 0.G. 451, 1908C.D. , 30App.D.C.491 
 
 Falkenberg 115 O.G. 1066, 1905 CD. 109, App.D.C. 
 
 Buchanan & Co. v. West's 
 
 Nephews ,124 O.G. 1524, 1906 CD. , App.D.C
 
 36 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Miehle V. Read , 96 O.G. 426, 1901C.D.396, 18 App.D.C. 128 
 
 Osborn v. Hotsapillar ,102 O.G. 1297, 1903 CD. 47, App.D.C. 
 
 Donnelly v. Wyman , lO;} O.G. e,r,9, 1903 CD. 95, 21 App.D.C 81 
 
 Furnian v. Dean 114 O.G. 1553, 1905 CD. 582. 24 App.D.C 277 
 
 Miel V. Young ,128 O.G. 2532, 1906 CD. 124, 29 App.D.C. 481 
 
 Miel V. Young 121 O.G. 1350, 1906 CD. 124, 29 App.D.C 481 
 
 Milans ,135 0.0.1122, 1907 CD. , 31 App.D.C 269 
 
 Miller V. Killey ,96O.G.1038, 1901 CD. 405, 18App.D.C163 
 
 Miller v. Kelley 84 O.G. 1144, 1898 CD. 150, 18 App.D.C 163 
 
 Weber v. Flather 103 O.G. 223, 1903 CD. 70, 21 App.D.C 179 
 
 Peckham v. Price 118 O.G. 1935, 1905 CD. 323, App.D.C. 
 
 Millett, Reid & Crosley 
 Steam Gage Co. v. Allen 
 
 Com. of Pat ,115 O.G. 1586, 1905 CD. 712, 27 App.D.C. 70 
 
 Millett et al. v. Allen, 
 
 Com. of Pat 124 O.G. 1524, 1906 CD. 752. 27 App.D.C. 70 
 
 Millett & Reid, v. Duell 
 
 Com. of Pat ,96 O.G. 1241, 1901 CD. 410, 18 App.D.C. 186 
 
 Grosselin , 97 O.G. 2979, 1901 CD. 248, App.D.C. 
 
 Mills ,117 O.G. 904, 1905 CD. 677, 25 App.D.C. 377 
 
 Milton V. Kingsley ..." , 75 O.G. 2 1 93, 1 896 CD. 420, 7 App.D.C. 53 1 
 
 Milton V. King.sley , 71 O.G. 887, 1895 CD. 3, 7 App.D.C. 531 
 
 Weber v. Flather 103 O.G. 223, 1903 CD. 70, 21 App.D.C. 179 
 
 Hastings v. Gallagher ..., 103 O.G. 427. 1903 CD. 83, 21 App.D.C 88 
 
 Granger v. Richardson. ., 110 O.G. 1726, 1904 CD. 211, App.D.C 
 
 Jackson v. Summerfield. ., 112 O.G. 1214, 1904 CD. 403, App.D.C. 
 
 Peckham v. Price 118 O.G. 1935, 1905 CD. 323. App.D.C. 
 
 Larkin v. Richardson 122 O.G. 2391, 1906 CD. 209, 28 App.D.C 471 
 
 Milton V. Kingsley , 75 O.G. 2195, 1896 CD. 426, 7 App.D.C. 531 
 
 Garrells et al. v. Freeman, 103 O.G. 1684, 1903 CD. 5G, 21 App.D.C. 207 
 
 Moeser , 1 23 O.G. 655, 1 906 CD. 685, 27 App.D.C. 307 
 
 Moffatt V. Weiss ,137 O.G. 148, 
 
 Podle.sak v. Mclnnerney . ., 120 O.G. 2127, 1906 D.C 558, 26 App.D.C. 399 
 
 Mondv. Duell, Com. of Pat., 91 O.G. 1487, 1900 CD. 298, 16 App.D.C. 351 
 
 Moore V. Hewitt ,136 O.G. 1535, 1908C.D. , 31 App.D.C. 577 
 
 Morrissey v. Seymour, Com. 
 
 of Pat , 79 O.G. 1684, 1897 CD. 481, 
 
 Mower v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat , 88 O.G. 191, 1899 CD. 395, 15 App.D.C 144 
 
 Thomson v. Weston 94 O.G. 9RG, 1901 CD. 24, 19 App.D.C. 373 
 
 Reichentaach v. Kelley..., 94 O.G. 1188, 1901 CD. 282, 17 App.D.C. 333 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard .106 O.G. 1241, 1903 CD. 335, 23 App.D.C. 526 
 
 Thomas v. Trissel 107 O.G. 266, 1903 CD. 408, 23 App.D.C. 219 
 
 Matthes v. Burt Ill O.G. 1356, 1904 CD. 296, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Matthes v. Burt 
 
 Oilman and Brown v. Hin- 114 O.G. 766. 1905 CD. 574. 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Gilman'and Brown V.'Hin- 118 O.G. 1934. 1905 CD. 414, 26 App.D.C. 409 
 
 son 122 O.G. 733, 1906 CD. 634, 26 App.D.C. 409 
 
 Wilder 128 O.G. 455, 1907 CD. , App.D.C 
 
 Munson v. Carper , 79 O.G. 160, 1897 CD. 359, 
 
 Munster v. Ash worth , 1 28 O.G. 2088, 1 907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 84 
 
 Murphy V. Meissner ,1 14 O.G. 1830, 1905C.D.592, 24 App.D.C 260 
 
 Musgrove & Mye v. Com. of 
 
 Pat , 78 O.G. 2047, 1897 CD. 336, 10 App.D.C. 164
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Mygatt ,121 O.G. 1676, 
 
 Mygatt Ill O.G. 24!);}, 
 
 Mygatt 115 O.G. lUGO, 
 
 Mygatt ,118 O.G. 1(J85, 
 
 National Phonograph Co.. .,128 O.G. 1295, 
 
 Hansen v. Inland Type 
 
 Foundry 134 O.G. 776, 
 
 Natural Food Co. v. Will- 
 iams ,133 O.G. 232, 
 
 Hansen v. Inland Type 
 
 Foundry 134 O.G. 777, 
 
 Brown-Forman Co. v. 
 
 Dist. Co ,134 O.G. 1566, 
 
 82 O.G. 749, 
 
 92 O.G. 1038, 
 106 O.G. 1000, 
 115 O.G. 804, 
 
 37 
 
 1906 CD. 596, 26 App.D.C. 366 
 
 1004 CD. 364, 26 App.D.C. 366 
 
 1!)05 CD. , 26 App.D.C. 
 
 1007 CD. , 26 App.D.C. 366 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 , 29 App.D.C 142 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 Neill V. Com. of Pat. 
 
 Rosell V. Allen.... 
 Ralph J. Crane.... 
 Dukes 
 
 Nielson v. Bradshaw. 
 
 Lewis and Williams 
 
 Cronemeyer 
 
 Hartley 
 
 Nielson v. Bradshaw. 
 
 Lewis and Williams 
 Cronemeyer 
 
 Neth & Tamplin v. Ohmer 
 Neth & Tamplin v. Ohmer 
 
 Neth and Tamplin v. Oh- 
 mer 
 
 Neth and Tamplin v. Oh- 
 mer 
 
 Neth and Tamplin v. Oh 
 mer and Ohmer v. Oh 
 mer 
 
 Newton v. Woodward. 
 
 Newton v. Woodward... 
 
 Latham v. Armat 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens... 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr. 
 
 and McDonald 
 
 Nimmy v. Com. of Pat. 
 Nordon v. Spaulding. 
 
 Burson v. Vogel... 
 
 Northall v. Bernardin. . . 
 
 Bernardin v. Northall and 
 Seymour, Com. of Pat 
 
 Bernardin v. Seymour 
 Com. of Pat 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Bernardin v, 
 Duell, Com. of Pat... 
 
 O'Connell v. Schmidt 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton.... 
 Mead v. Davis and Var^ 
 
 ney 
 
 Mead v. Davis and Var 
 
 ney 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton. . 
 
 Goodfellow V. Jolly... 
 Dunbar v. Schellenger. 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton.. 
 Ohmer v. Ohmer 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1898 CD. 
 
 1900 CD. 
 1903 CD. 
 1905 CD. 
 
 332, 
 333, 
 332, 
 100, 
 
 30App 
 
 App 
 30 App. 
 
 11 App 
 
 16 App. 
 App. 
 App 
 
 .D.C 348 
 
 D.C 
 D.C. 485 
 
 .D.C 584 
 
 D.C 559 
 
 D.C. 
 
 D.C. 
 
 91 O.G. 644, 1900 CD. 265, 10 App.D.C 92 
 274, 
 
 130 
 136 
 
 91 
 
 130 
 
 135 
 123 
 
 116 
 120 
 
 O.G. 302, 
 O.G. 1767, 
 
 O.G. 648, 
 
 O.G. 302, 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 662, 
 998, 
 
 874, 
 323, 
 
 135 O.G. 662, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1900 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 693, 
 
 693. 
 
 29 App. 
 App. 
 
 16 App 
 
 29 App. 
 
 30 App 
 27 App 
 
 27 App 
 
 30 App 
 
 D.C 174 
 D.C. 
 
 .D.C 92 
 
 D.C 174 
 
 .D.C 478 
 .D.C 319 
 
 D.C 319 
 D.C 478 
 
 123 
 86 
 
 114 
 131 
 
 74 
 
 79 
 
 86 
 
 122 
 110 
 
 136 
 136 
 114 
 115 
 
 128 
 
 115 
 135 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G. 
 O.G. 
 
 O.G, 
 O.G. 
 
 2314, 
 
 2020, 
 
 233, 
 
 1454, 
 
 1288, 
 
 345, 
 1828, 
 
 944, 
 
 655, 
 
 1740, 
 
 1192, 
 
 996, 
 
 2065, 
 1723, 
 
 2003, 
 
 2004, 
 
 545, 
 1064, 
 2840, 
 
 1850, 
 662, 
 
 1900 
 
 1898 
 1901 
 1901 
 
 1906 
 
 1899 
 
 1905 
 
 1907 
 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 
 406, 
 
 206, 
 337, 
 365, 
 
 705. 
 
 265, 
 
 588, 
 
 1896 CD. 183, 
 
 1897 CD. 327. 
 1897 CD. 428, 
 
 287, 
 
 662, 
 
 1899 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1904 CD. 207, 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 1905 CD. 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1905 CD, 
 1908 CD. 
 
 569, 
 
 105. 
 
 632, 
 
 30 App.D.C. 478 
 
 17 App.D.C 34 
 
 17 App.D.C. 84 
 17 App.D.C. 345 
 17 App.D.C. 548 
 
 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 13 App.D.C 565 
 24 App.D.C. 286 
 
 29 App.D.C 388 
 
 7 App.D.C 452 
 
 7 App.D.C. 452 
 10 App.D.C. 294 
 13 App.D.C. 379 
 
 27 App.D.C 77 
 
 24 App.D.C. 296 
 
 31 App.D.C. 590 
 31 App.D.C. 590 
 
 24 App.D.C 296 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 25 App.D.C 90 
 
 30 App.D.C 478
 
 38 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Oliver v. Felbel ,100 O.G. 2384, 1902 CD. 565, 20 App.D.C. 255 
 
 Felber v. Oliver 100 O.G. 1975, 1902 CD. 309, 20 App.D.C. 255 
 
 Felber v. Oliver 100 O.G. 2175. 1902 CD. 565. 20 App.D.C. 255 
 
 Snider v. Bunnell 101 O.G. 2572. 1902 CD. 400, App.D.C. 
 
 Snider v. Bunnell 103 O.G. 890, 1903 CD. 117. App.D.C. 
 
 Luger V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 1904 CD. 593, 21 App.D.C 201 
 
 Brown v. Blood 105 O.G. 977, 1903 CD. 224, 22 App.D.C. 216 
 
 Ralph J Crane 106 O.G. 1000, 1903 CD. 332, App.D.C. 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard 106 O.G. 1241, 1903 CD. 335, 23 App.D.C. 526 
 
 Woods V. Waddell ,106 O.G. 2018, 1903 CD. 391. App.D.C. 
 
 Brooks V. Smith 110 O.G. 2014. 1904 CD. 223, 24 App.D.C. 75 
 
 Matthes v. Burt m O.G. 1366. 1904 CD. 296. 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Matthes v. Burt ,114 O.G. 766. 1905 CD. 574, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Lattig and Goodrum v. 
 
 Dean 117 O.G. 1799, 1905 CD. 698, 25 App.D.C 591 
 
 Niedring v. Marquard v. 
 
 McConnell 121 O.G. 337, 1906 CD. 92, App.D.C. 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman ,121 O.G. 1351, 1906 CD. 588. 26 App.D.C. 336 
 
 Gibbons v. Peller 127 O.G. 3644. 1907 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 530 
 
 Onderdonk V. Parkes ,135 O.G. 665, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C 214 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald Jr. & 
 
 McDonald ,123 0.0.1287, 1906 CD. 705, 27 App.D.C 228 
 
 Richards v. Burkholder. .. 128 O.G. 2534. 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 485 
 
 Original La Tosca Club v. 
 
 La Tosca Social Club. . ., 23 App.D.C. 96 
 
 Ostergen v. Tripler , 95 O.G. 837, 1901 CD. 350, 17 App.D.C. 557 
 
 Parker v. Appert , 75 O.G. 1 20 1 , 1 896 CD. 37 1 , 8 App.D.C 270 
 
 Appert v. Parker 74 O.G. 1587. 1896 CD. 5. 8 App.D.C. 270 
 
 Cross V. Phillips 87 O.G. 1401. 1899 CD. 342. 14 App.D.C 228 
 
 Friestedt r. Harold 116 O.G. 594, 1905 CD. 161, App.D.C. 
 
 Neth and Tamplin t. Oh- 
 
 mer 116 O.G. 875. 1905 CD. . 27 App.D.C. 319 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis ,123 O.G. 2313, 1906 CD. 735, 28 App.D.C 1 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis 110 O.G. 305, 1904 CD. 142, 28 App.D.C. 1 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis 120 O.G. 323, 1906 CD. 735, 28 App.D.C 1 
 
 Paul V. Hess ,115 O.G. 251, 1905 CD. 610, 24 App.D.C 462 
 
 Paul V. Hess 113 O.G. 847. 1904 CD. 478. 24 App.D.C 462 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis 120 O.G. 2444, 1906 CD. 732, 27 App.D.C 567 
 
 Dunbar v. Schellenger. . .. 128 O.G. 2840. 1907 CD. . 29 App.D.C. 129 
 Wickers and Furlong v. 
 
 McKee 129 O.G. 872, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C 4 
 
 Moore v. Hewitt 136 O.G. 1536, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 577 
 
 Paul V. Johnson ,109 O.G. 807, 1904 CD. 610, 25 App.D.C. 187 
 
 Paul V. Johnson 106 O.G. 2013. 1903 CD. 308. 23 App.D.C. 187 
 
 Peton V. Evered , 77 O.G. 1 600, 1 896 CD. 65 1 , 19 App.D.C. 386 
 
 Pearsall , 31 App.D.C. 265 
 
 Petrie v. DeSchweinitz , 99 O.G. 1387, 1902 CD. 534, 19 App.D.C 386 
 
 Petrie v. DeSchweinitz... 99 O.G. 446. 1902 CD. 127. 19 App.D.C. 386 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich ,134 O.G. 1806, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C 159 
 
 Phillips V. Sensenich 132 O.G. 677. 1908 CD. . 31 App.D.C 159 
 
 Lotz V. Kenny 135 O.G. 1802. 1908 CD. . 31 App.D.C. 205 
 
 Pickard v. Ashton and 
 
 Curtis ,137 O.G. 732, 
 
 Foster v. Antisdel 88 O.G. 957, 24 App.D.C. 552 
 
 Prindle v. Brown 112 O.G. 957, 24 App.D.C. 114 
 
 Pickles V. Aglar , 86 O.G. 346, 1899 CD. 268, 13 App.D.C. 556 
 
 Piatt V. Shipley , 82 O.G. 461, 1898C.D.307, 1 1 App.D.C. 576 
 
 Pihl V. Mersman 106 O.G. 1776. 1903 CD. 367, App.D.C. 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge ,114 O.G. 2384, 1905 CD. 603. 24 App.D.C. 476
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 39 
 
 Podlesak & Podlesak v. Mc- 
 
 Innerney ,120 O.G. 2127, 
 
 Mifl V. Young- , llil O.G. i;{5(>. 
 
 Potter V. Mcintosh 122 O.G. 1722, 
 
 Lowry and Cowley v. 
 
 Spoon ,122 O.G. 2688, 
 
 Browne v. Stroud ,122 O.G. 2689, 
 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney 123 O.G. 1989, 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis , 12;$ O.G. 2313, 
 
 Brown V. Hodgkinson .... 123 O.G. 2973, 
 
 Blackford v. Wilder 124 O.G. 319, 
 
 Dixon and Marsh v. Graves 
 
 and Whittemore 127 O.G. 1994, 
 
 Kilbourn v. Hirner 128 O.G. 1690, 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. 
 
 McKee ,129 O.G. 874, 
 
 MacMulken v. Bollee , 130 O.G. 1691, 
 
 Eilerman et al. v. Mc- 
 
 Elroy ,130 O.G. 2721, 
 
 Gueniffet, Benoit and Ni- 
 
 cault V. Wictorsohn. . ., 134 O.G. 255, 
 Viele V. Cummings 134 O.G. 779, 
 
 Porter v. Louden , 73 O.G. 1 55 1 , 
 
 Croskey v. Atterbury 75 O.G. 1360, 
 
 Arnold v. Tyler 79 O.G. 157, 
 
 Estey V. Newton , 86 O.G. 800, 
 
 Kasson V. Hetherington. ., 88 O.G. 1159, 
 
 Osborn v. Hotsapillar ,102 O.G. 1297, 
 
 Haskell v. Miner v. Ball, 109 O.G. 2171. 
 
 Potter V. Mcintosh ,127 O.G. 1995, 
 
 Potter V. Mcintosh 116 O.G. 1451, 
 
 Potter V. Mcintosh 120 O.G. 1823, 
 
 Potter V. Mcintosh 122 O.G. 1721. 
 
 Prindle v. Brown ,112 O.G. 957, 
 
 Trufant v. Prindle v. 
 
 Brown ,111 O.G. 1035, 
 
 Dunbar v. Schellenger . . ., 121 O.G. 2664, 
 Dunbar v. Schellenger .... 128 O.G. 2839, 
 
 Hamm v. Black 132 O.G. 842, 
 
 Bossart v. Pohl. Pohl v. 
 
 Bossart ,135 O.G. 454. 
 
 Picard v. Asliton and Cur- 
 tis , 137 O.G. 733, 
 
 Quist V. Ostrom ,108 O.G. 2147, 
 
 Quist V. Ostrom 106 O.G. 1501, 
 
 Reichenbach v. Kelley , 94 O.G. 1 185, 
 
 Tyler v. St. Amand 94 O.G. 1970, 
 
 Latham v. Armat 95 O.G. 234, 
 
 Howard v. Hey 95 O.G. 1648, 
 
 Paul V. Hess 115 O.G. 252. 
 
 Richard v. Meissner , 1 1 4 O.G. 1 83 1 , 
 
 Neth and Tamplin v. Oh- 
 
 mer 123 O.G. 999, 
 
 Dunbar v. Schellenger 128 O.G. 2839, 
 
 Hansen v. Inland Type 
 
 Foundry 134 O.G. 776, 
 
 Kinsman v. Strohm 136 O.G. 1770, 
 
 Richard v. Buckholder ,128 O.G. 2533, 
 
 Howard v. Bowes 137 O.G. 735, 
 
 Ries V. Kirkegaard & Jebsen, 1 32 O.G. 845, 
 Ritter v. Krakau & Connor, 
 
 Jr ,114 O.G. 1553, 
 
 Ritter v. Krakau and Con- 
 nor, Jr , 108 O.G. 1050, 
 
 Roberts v. Brinkman , 79 O.G. 1 190, 
 
 1906 CD. 558, 
 
 1900 CD. 124 
 1906 CD. 183 
 
 1906 CD. 224 
 1906 CD. 226 
 
 1906 CD. 265 
 1906 CD. 735 
 1906 CD. 290 
 
 1906 CD. 304 
 
 1907 CD. 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1895 CD. 707, 
 
 1896 CD. 
 
 1897 CD. 
 1899 CD. 284, 
 1899 CD. 143, 
 
 1903 CD. 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 349 
 
 47 
 131 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 
 29 App.D.C. 481 
 28 App.D.C 510 
 
 App.D.C. 
 App.D.C 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 
 28 App.D.C. 1 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 28 App.D.C 535 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 29 App.D.C. 54 
 
 29 App.D.C. 4 
 
 30 App.D.C. 112 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 30 App.D.C. 432 
 30 App.D.C. 455 
 
 7 App.D.C 64 
 
 9 App.D.C 207 
 10 App.D.C. 175 
 14 App.D.C. 50 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1907 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 510 
 
 1905 CD. 195, 28 App.D.C. 510 
 
 1906 CD. 56, 28 App.D.C. 510 
 1906 CD. 183, 28 App.D.C. 510 
 
 1904 CD. 680, 24 App.D.C. 1 14 
 
 1904 CD. 282, 
 
 1906 CD. 147, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1904 CD. 594, 
 
 1903 CD. 348. 
 
 1901 CD. 282, 
 
 1901 CD. 301, 
 1901 CD. 337, 
 1901 CD. 375, 
 
 1905 CD. 610, 
 
 1905 CD. 595, 
 
 1906 CD. 693, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 24 App.D.C. 114 
 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 31 App.D.C. 218 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 23 App.D.C 69 
 
 23 App.D.C. 69 
 
 17 App.D.C 333 
 
 17 App.D.C. 464 
 
 17 App.D.C. 345 
 
 18 App.D.C 142 
 
 24 App.D.C. 462 
 
 24 App.D.C 305 
 
 27 App.D.C. 319 
 29 App.D.C. 129 
 
 App.D.C. 
 31 App.D.C. 581 
 
 29 App.D.C 485 
 
 31 App.D.C. 611 
 
 30 App.D.C 199 
 
 1905 CD. 585, 24 App.D.C 271 
 
 1904 CD. 44, 24 App.D.C. 271 
 
 1897 CD. 427, 10 App.D.C. 543
 
 40 
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Robinson V. Copeland. . . ^ 1120G 501 
 
 Robinson v. Copeland 97 O.G. 2531. 
 
 Robinson v. Copeland lo2 O.G. 466, 
 
 Robinson v. Copeland ,105 O.G. 263, 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis ,123 O.G. 2314. 
 
 Robinson v. McCormick. . .,128 O.G. 3289, 
 Robinson v. Seelinger ,116 O.G. 1735, 
 
 Sherwood v. Drewsen ,130 O.G. 660. 
 
 Robinson v. Thresher ,123 O.G. 2976, 
 
 Robinson v. Thresher 123 O.G. 2627. 
 
 Roe V. Hanson , 99 O.G. 2550, 
 
 Shaffer v. Dolan 107 O.G. 540, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt ,111 O.G. 1364, 
 
 Smith V. Brooks ,112 O.G. 955, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt 114 O.G. 766, 
 
 Rogers, Ltd. v. International 
 Silver Co ,129 O.G. 3503, 
 
 Rolfe V. Hoffman ,121 O.G. 1350, 
 
 Rose Shoe Mfg. Co. v. A. A. 
 Rosenbush & Co 127 O.G. 394, 
 
 Rose V. Clifford & Newell, 135 O.G. 1361, 
 
 Rosebrush v. Holman , 78 O.G. 1258, 
 
 Rosell V. Allen , 92 O.G. 1036, 
 
 Ross V. Loewer , 77 O.G. 2141, 
 
 Trevette v. Dexter , 84 O.G. 1283, 
 
 Blackman v. Alexander. ., 105 O.G. 2060, 
 Cole V. Zarbock v. Greene, 116 O.G. 1451, 
 
 Rousseau v. Brown ,104 O.G. 1 120, 
 
 Rousseau v. Brown 103 O.G. 659, 
 
 Rousseau v. Brown , 1 04 O.G. 1 1 22, 
 
 stiff V. Galbraith 107 O.G. 2532, 
 
 DeFerranti v. Lindmark. ., 129 O.G. 1610. 
 
 Ruete V. Elwell , 87 O.G. 21 19, 
 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al., 88 O.G. 1706, 
 
 Feder v. Poyet 89 O.G. 1344, 
 
 Dashiell v. Tasker 102 O.G. 1552, 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton. ..., no O.G. 1724. 
 Funk et al. v. Whitely . ., 117 O.G. 280, 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney 120 O.G. 2130, 
 
 Alexander v. Blackman. ., 121 O.G. 1981, 
 
 Sachs V. Hundhausen ,105 O.G. 1534, 
 
 Schaeffer , 66 O.G. 514, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens. . . ., 95 O.G. 1445, 
 
 Schiipphaus 100 O.G. 2776, 
 
 O-sborn v. Hotsapillar 102 O.G. 1297, 
 
 Newcomb v. Lemp 112 O.G. 1216, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2383, 
 
 Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. 
 
 The Maltine Co ,134 O.G. 1804, 
 
 Schraubstadter ,120 O.G. 1 167, 
 
 Schraubstadter 116 O.G. 1185, 
 
 Smith 130 O.G. 1689. 
 
 1904 CD. 664, 
 
 1901 CD. 227, 
 
 1903 CD. 13, 
 
 1903 CD. 218, 
 
 1906 CD. 735, 
 
 1 1 App.D.C 
 24 App.D.C. 
 
 24 App.D.C. 
 24 App.D.C. 
 24 App.D.C. 
 28 App.D.C. 
 
 58 
 68 
 
 68 
 
 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 98 
 
 1905 CD. 640, 25 App.D.C. 237 
 
 1907 CD. . 29 App.D.C 161 
 
 1906 CD. 743, 28 App.D.C. 22 
 
 1906 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 22 
 
 1 902 CD. 546, 1 9 App.D.C 559 
 
 1903 CD. 422, 23 App.D.C. 79 
 
 1904 CD. 296, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 1904 CD. 223, 24 App.D.C. 75 
 
 1905 CD. 574, 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 1907 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 97 
 1906 CD. 588, 26 App.D.C. 336 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 28 App.D.C. 465 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 31 App.D.C. 195 
 
 1897 CD. 322, 
 
 
 1900 CD. 333, 
 
 16 App.D.C. 559 
 
 1896 CD. 665, 
 
 1898 CD. 160, 
 1903 CD. 288, 
 1905 CD. 194, 
 
 1903 CD. 587, 
 
 1903 CD. 101, 
 
 9 App.D.C. 563 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 26 App.D.C 541 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 21 App.D.C 73 
 
 21 App.D.C. 73 
 
 1903 CD. 592, 
 
 1904 CD. 10, 
 1907 CD. 
 
 21 App.D.C 73 
 
 App.D.C 
 30 App.D.C. 417 
 
 1900 CD. 379, 
 
 1899 CD. 416, 
 1899 CD. 218, 
 
 1903 CD. 50, 
 
 1904 CD. 207, 
 
 1905 CD. 34, 
 
 15 App.D.C 21 
 
 15 App.D.C. 157 
 
 App.D.C. 
 21 App.D.C. 64 
 
 24 App.D.C. 296 
 
 25 App.D.C 313 
 
 1906 CD. 558, 
 1906 CD. 602, 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 26 App.D.C. 541 
 
 1903 CD. 625, 
 
 21 App.D.C 511 
 
 1894 CD. 134, 
 
 2 App.D.C. 1 
 
 1901 CD. 365, 
 
 1902 CD. 339, 
 
 1903 CD. 47, 
 
 1904 CD. 412. 
 
 1905 CD. 603, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 548 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 24 App.D.C 476 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 30 App.D.C 346 
 
 1 906 CD. 54 1 , 26 App.D.C. 33 1 
 
 1905 CD. 190, 26 App.D.C. 331 
 
 1907 CD. . App.D.C.
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 41 
 
 Schuster Co. v. Muller ..... 1 26 O.G. 2 1 92, 
 Scott ,117 0.0. 278, 
 
 Scott ,114 O.G. 200, 
 
 Scott V. Scott , 96 O.G. 1650, 
 
 Seabury ,110 0.0.2238, 
 
 Seabury 110 O.G. 2013, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge , 1 1 4 O.O. 2382, 
 
 Seeberg-er v. Dodge 113 O.G. 1415, 
 
 Pohle V. McKnight 119 O.G. 2521, 
 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney ,120 O.G. 2130, 
 
 Clunies 123 O.G. 2631, 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis 123 O.G. 2312, 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis 123 O.G. 2313, 
 
 Bechman v. Southgate. . ., 127 O.G. 1255, 
 
 Kilbourn v. Hirner ,128 O.G. 1690, 
 
 Jansson v. Larsson 132 O.G. 477, 
 
 Moore v. Hewitt 136 O.G. 1536, 
 
 Mead v. Davis and Var- 
 
 ney 136 O.G. 2003, 
 
 Seeberger v. Russel ,121 O.O. 2328, 
 
 Sendelbach v. Gillette ,109 0.0. 276, 
 
 Anderson v. TVells 122 O.G. 3016, 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald 123 O.G. 1288. 
 
 Seymour v. U. S. ex rel., 
 
 Brodie , 79 O.G. 509, 
 
 Painter v. Hall 83 O.G. 1806, 
 
 Anderson and Dyer v. 
 
 Lowry 89 O.G. 1862, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 
 U. S. ex rel., Nat. Phono- 
 
 grauh Co. v. Allen, 
 
 Com. of Pat 101 O.G. 1134, 
 
 Seymour v. Nelson , 
 
 Shaffer v. Dolan ,108 0.0.2146, 
 
 Shaffer v. Dolan ,100 O.G. 3012, 
 
 Shaffer v. Dolan 107 O.G. 539, 
 
 Miles v. Todd 112 O.G. 1480, 
 
 Sharer v. McHenry , 98 O.G. 585, 
 
 Sliarer v. McHenry 91 O.G. 1034. 
 
 Dashiell v. Tasker ,102 O.G. 1552, 
 
 Garrels et al. v. Freeman, 103 O.G. 1684. 
 
 Quist V. Ostrom 106 O.G. 1501. 
 
 French v. Halcomb , 115 O.G. 506, 
 
 Bauer v. Crone 118 O.G. 1071. 
 
 Sheldon A35 0.0. 1585, 
 
 Shellaberger v. Schnabel. ., 79 O.O. 339, 
 
 Bender v. Hoffmann...., 85 O.G. 1741, 
 
 Shellaberger v. Sommer.., 74 0.0.1897, 
 
 Shaffer v. Dolan , 107 O.G. 540. 
 
 Sherwood v. Drewsen , 1 30 0.0. 657, 
 
 Shuman v. Beall Jr ,123 O.O. 1664, 
 
 Silverman v. Hendrickson., 99 0.0. 1171, 
 
 Silverman v. Hendrickson. 99 O.G. 445. 
 
 Patten v. Wiesenfeld 99 O.G. 2548. 
 
 Taylor. Jr 114 O.G. 1265, 
 
 Marconi v. Shoemaker. .., 131 O.G. 1940, 
 
 1906 CD. 
 1905 CD. 605, 
 
 1905 CD. 665, 
 
 28 App.D.C. 409 
 25 App.D.C. 307 
 
 25 App.D.C. 307 
 
 1 90 1 CD. 419, 18 App.D.C 420 
 
 23 App.D.C. 377 
 
 23 App.D.C. 377 
 
 24 App.D.C 476 
 
 24 App.D.C. 476 
 30 App.D.C. 92 
 
 1904 CD. 655, 
 
 1904 CD. 222. 
 
 1905 CD. 603, 
 
 1905 CD. 603. 
 
 1905 CD. 549. 
 
 1906 CD. 558 
 1906 CD. 206 
 1906 CD. 732 
 1906 CD. 732 
 
 1906 CD. 270, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1906 CD. 612, 
 1904 CD. 597, 
 
 1906 CD. 667, 
 
 1906 CD. 705, 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 26 App.D.C. 
 28 App.D.C 
 
 27 App.D.C. 
 
 27 App.D.C. 
 
 28 App.D.C. 
 31 App.D.C. 
 
 30 App.D.C. 
 
 31 App.D.C. 
 
 399 
 18 
 567 
 567 
 405 
 293 
 203 
 577 
 
 31 App.D.C. 590 
 
 26 App.D.C 344 
 22 App.D.C 168 
 
 27 App.D.C. 115 
 
 1897 CD. 372, 10 App.D.C. 567 
 
 1898 CD. 91, App.D.C. 
 
 1899 CD. 230, App.D.C. 
 1901 CD. 365. 17 App.D.C. 548 
 
 1902 CD. 
 
 571. 
 
 19 App.D.C 142 
 
 11 App.D.C 58 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 592, 
 
 23 App.D.C 79 
 
 1902 CD. 
 1904 CD. 
 1904 CD. 
 
 344. 
 592, 
 420, 
 
 23 App.D.C. 79 
 
 23 App.D.C. 79 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 1905 CD. 
 
 503, 
 
 19 App.D.C 158 
 
 1900. CD. 
 1903 CD. 
 1903 CD. 
 1903 CD. 
 1905 CD. 
 1905 CD. 
 
 65, 
 50, 
 56, 
 
 348, 
 81, 
 
 378, 
 
 19 App.D.C. 158 
 21 App.D.C. 64 
 21 App.D.C. 207 
 23 App.D.C 69 
 26 App.D.C. 307 
 26 App.D.C. 352 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 , 
 
 31 App.D.C 201 
 
 1897 CD 
 
 364, 
 
 10 App.D.C 145 
 
 1898 CD. 
 
 262, 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 1896 CD 
 
 292, 
 
 8 App.D.C 3 
 
 1904 CD. 
 
 592. 
 
 23 App.D.C. 79 
 
 1907 CD 
 
 , 
 
 29 App.D.C 161 
 
 1906 CD 
 
 710, 
 
 27 App.D.C. 324 
 
 1902 CD 
 
 527, 
 
 19 App.D.C 381 
 
 1902 CD. 
 1902 CD. 
 ;905 CD. 
 1907 CD. 
 
 123, 
 
 197, 
 
 45, 
 
 19 App.D.C 381 
 
 App.D.C. 
 31 App.D.C. 529 
 
 App.D.C.
 
 42 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL. CASES 
 
 Slaughter v. Halle ,102O.G. 469, 1903 CD. 519, 21 App.D.C. 19 
 
 Barrett v. Harter 112 O.G. 731. 1904 CD. 392, 24 App.D.C. 300 
 
 Barrett v. Harter ,112 O.G. 732, 1904 CD. 392, 24 App.D.C. 300 
 
 Harter v. Barrett 114 O.G. 976, 1905 CD. 578, 24 App.D.C. 300 
 
 French v. Halcomb 115 O.G. 508, 1905 CD. 81, 26 App.D.C. 307 
 
 Smelting Co. v. Nathan Mfg. 
 
 Co ,135 O.G. 664, 1908 CD. , 30 App.D.C. 487 
 
 Smith V. Anderson ,136 O.G. 850, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 5 18 
 
 Smith V. Brooks ,112 O.G. 953, 1904 CD. 672, 24 App.D.C 75 
 
 Smith V. Duell, Com. of Pat. 87 O.G. 893, 1899 CD. 313, 14 App.D.C. 181 
 
 Lowry v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 88 O.G. 718, 1899 CD. 410, App.D.C. 
 
 Beswick v. Duell, Com. of 
 
 Pat 91 O.G. 1437, 1900 CD. 294, 16 App.D.C. 345 
 
 Smith V. Foley ,136 O.G. 850, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C 578 
 
 Snyder v. Fisher, Acting 
 
 Com. of Pat , 78 O.G. 485, 1897 CD. 254, 10 App.D.C. 140 
 
 Sobey v. Holsclaw ,126 O.G. 3041, 1906 CD. , 28 App.D.C. 65 
 
 Soley V. Hebbard , 70 O.G. 921, 1895 CD. 182, 5 App.D.C. 99 
 
 Clarke v. Pettengill v. 
 
 Crancer 77 O.G. 1271, 1896 CD. . App.D.C. 
 
 Somers & Co. v. Newman, 
 
 Exec. J. P. Horn ,134 O.G. 2031, 1908C.D. , 31 App.D.C. 193 
 
 Southall V. Seymour, Com. 
 
 of Pat , 79 O.G. 1684, 1897 CD. 480, 
 
 Spalding (A. G.) & Bros..., 123 O.G. 321, 1906C.D.674, 27App.D.C.314 
 
 Spitteler & Krische ,134 O.G. 1301, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 271 
 
 Standard Underground Ca- 
 ble Co ,123 O.G. 656, 1906 CD. 687, 27 App.D.C 320 
 
 Planten v. Canton Phar- 
 macy Company 130 O.G. 1484, 1907 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 Graves V. Gunder 136 O.G. 228, 1908 CD. , App.D.C. 
 
 Stapleton v. Duell , 95 O.G. 1049, 17 App.D.C. 575 
 
 Stapleton v. Kinney , 96 O.G. 1432, 1901 CD. 414, 18 App.D.C. 394 
 
 Clement v. Richard.s v. 
 
 Meissner 113 O.G. 1145, 1904 CD. 492, 24 App.D.C. 205 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis ,120 O.G. 2444, 1906 CD. 732, 27 App.D.C. 567 
 
 Starkey ,104 O.G. 2150, 1903 CD. 607, 21 App.D.C 519 
 
 Starkey 105 O.G. 745, 1903 CD. 251. 21 App.D.C. 519 
 
 Felbel v. Aquilar ,121 O.G. 1012, 1906 CD. 113, App.D.C. 
 
 Felbel v. Aquilar 121 O.G. 1013. 1906 CD. 113, App.D.C. 
 
 Ams , 127 O.G. 3646. 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C. 91 
 
 Steinmetz V. Thomas ,131 O.G. 362, 1908 CD. , 31 App.D.C. 579 
 
 Steinmetz v. Thomas 119 O.G. 1260, 1905 CD. 507, 31 App.D.C 574 
 
 Stern V. Rosey ,133 O.G. 763, 1908 CD. , 17 App.D.C. 562 
 
 Stevens V. Seher , 31 O.G. 1932, 1897 CD. 761, 1 1 App.D.C. 245 
 
 Stevens v. Field v. Seher, 81 O.G. 1929, 1897 CD. 177, 11 App.D.C. 245 
 
 Fowler v. Dod^c 82 O.G. 1689, 1898 CD. 28, 14 App.D.C. 477 
 
 Richardson v. Humphrey, 88 O.G. 2241, 1899 CD. 179, App.D.C. 
 
 Schiipphaus v. .Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1453, 1901 CD. 365. 17 App.D.C 548 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 1901 CD. 365, 17 App.D.C 548 
 
 Hammond v. Basch ,115 O.G. 806, 1905 CD. 615, 24 App.D.C. 469 
 
 Parkes v. Lewis ,123 O.G. 2314. 1906 CD. 735. 28 App.D.C 1 
 
 Stone V. Pupin ,100 O.G. 1 1 13, 1902 CD. 550, 19 App.D.C. 396 
 
 Pupin V. Hutin and Le- 
 
 Blanc V. Stone ,100 O.G. 931, 1902 CD. 269, 19 App.D.C. 396
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 43 
 
 Swihart v. Mauldin , 99 O.G. 2322, 
 
 Swihart v. Maulding 99 O.G. 665, 
 
 Luger V. Browning 104 O.G. 1124, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2383, 
 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney 120 O.G. 2130, 
 
 Orcutt V. McDonald, Jr., 
 
 and McDonald 123 O.G. 1288, 
 
 Swinburne , 99 O.G. 1625, 
 
 Talbot V. Monell , 1 09 O.G. 280, 
 
 Talbot V. Monell and 
 
 Jame-s 109 O.G. 554, 
 
 Talbot V. Monell & James. . ,109 O.G. 554, 
 
 Taylor ,136 O.G. 1767, 
 
 Taylor & Taylor v. Lowrie,123 O.G. 1991, 
 Thibadeau v. Dickinson. . .,1 17 O.G. 600, 
 Thibadeau v. Hildreth. . . .,1 17 O.G. 601, 
 Thibadeau v. Hildreth. .. .,1 17 O.G. 602, 
 Thomson ,120 O.G. 2756, 
 
 Thomson 118 O.G. 266, 
 
 Heroult 127 O.G. 3220, 
 
 Thomson v. Weston , 99 O.G. 864, 
 
 Thomson v. Weston 94 O.G. 986, 
 
 Blood V. Brown 105 O.G. 498, 
 
 Brooks V. Hillard 106 O.G. 1241, 
 
 Quist V. Ostrom , 106 O.G. 1507, 
 
 Thomas v. Trissel 107 O.G. 266, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt , 111 O.G. 1365, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt 114 O.G. 766, 
 
 Bliss V. McElroy 128 O.G. 460, 
 
 Cutler V. Hall 135 O.G. 449, 
 
 Howard v. Bowes 137 O.G. 735, 
 
 Thurston ,120 O.G. 1166, 
 
 Tournier , 94 O.G. 2166, 
 
 Tournier 90 O.G. 1948, 
 
 Steck 98 O.G. 229, 
 
 Tournier 108 O.G. 798, 
 
 Townsend v. Ehret v. Young 
 V. Struber ,137 O.G. 1485, 
 
 Drawbaugh v. Seymour, 
 
 Com. of Pat 77 O.G. 317, 
 
 Townsend v. Thullen and 
 Thullen V. Young ,137 O.G. 1711, 
 
 Drawbaugh v. Seymour, 
 
 Com. of Pat 77 O.G. 317, 
 
 Tracy v. Leslie , 87 O.G. 891, 
 
 Ruete V. Elwell 87 O.G. 2121, 
 
 Feder v. Poyet , 89 O.G. 1344, 
 
 Rosell V. Allen , 92 O.G. 1038, 
 
 Schiipphaus v. Stevens..., 95 O.G. 1454, 
 
 Funk et al. v. Whitely . ., 117 O.G. 280, 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney 120 O.G. 2130, 
 
 Traver v. Brown , 86 O.G. 1324, 
 
 Ruete V. Elwell 87 O.G. 212], 
 
 Reichenbach v. Kelley..., 94 O.G. 1188, 
 
 Tyler v. St. Amand 94 O.G. 1970, 
 
 Latham v. Armat , 95 O.G. 2.34, 
 
 Howard v. Hey 95 O.G. 1648, 
 
 Greenwood v. Dover ,108 O.G. 2144, 
 
 Paul V. Hess H^ O.G. 252, 
 
 Funk et al. v. Whitely. ., 117 O.G. 280. 
 
 1 902 CD. 540, 1 9 App.D.C 570 
 
 1902 CD. 137, 19 App.D.C. 570 
 
 1904 CD. 593, 21 App.D.C. 201 
 
 1905 CD. 603, 24 App.D.C. 476 
 
 1906 CD. 558. 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 
 1906 CD. 705, 
 
 27 App.D.C. 228 
 
 1902 CD. 537, 
 
 19 App.D.C 565 
 
 1904 CD. 606, 
 
 23 App.D.C 108 
 
 1904 CD. 609, 
 
 23 App.D.C 112 
 
 1904 CD. 609, 
 
 23 App.D.C 112 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 31 App.D.C. 529 
 
 1906 CD. 722, 
 
 27 App.D.C. 527 
 
 1905 CD. 672, 
 
 25 App.D.C. 316 
 
 1905 CD. 675, 
 
 25 App.D.C. 320 
 
 1905 CD. 677, 
 
 25 App.D.C. 323 
 
 1906 CD. 677, 
 
 1905 CD. 327, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 26 App.D.C. 419 
 
 26 App.D.C 419 
 5 App.D.C. 90 
 
 1902 CD. 521, 
 
 1901 CD. 24, 
 
 1903 CD. 224, 
 1903 CD. 335, 
 1903 CD. 348, 
 
 1903 CD. 408, 
 
 1904 CD. 296, 
 
 1905 CD. 574, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1908 CD. 
 
 19 App.D.C 373 
 
 19 App.D.C. 373 
 
 22 App.D.C. 216 
 
 23 App.D.C. 526 
 23 App.D.C. 69 
 
 23 App.D.C 219 
 
 24 App.D.C. 265 
 24 App.D.C 265 
 29 App.D.C 120 
 
 App.D.C. 
 31 App.D.C. 619 
 
 1906 CD. 539, 
 
 26 App.D.C 315 
 
 1901 CD. 306, 
 
 1900 CD. 37, 
 
 1902 CD. 9, 
 1904 CD. 36, 
 
 17 App.D.C. 481 
 
 17 App.D.C. 481 
 
 App.D.C. 
 17 App.D.C. 481 
 
 
 9 App.D.C. 219 
 
 
 9 App.D.C. 219 
 
 1899 CD. 306, 
 
 1899 CD. 379, 
 
 1899 CD. 219, 
 
 1900 CD. 333, 
 
 1901 CD. 365, 
 1905 CD. 670, 
 
 14 App.D.C 126 
 
 15 App.D.C. 21 
 App.D.C. 
 
 16 App.D.C. 559 
 
 17 App.D.C. 548 
 25 App.D.C. 313 
 
 1906 CD. 558. 
 
 1899 CD. 296, 
 
 1899 CD. 379, 
 1901 CD. 282, 
 1901 CD. 301, 
 1901 CD. 337, 
 1901 CD. 375, 
 1903 CD. 66, 
 1905 CD. 610, 
 1905 CD. 670, 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 
 14 App.D.C 34 
 
 15 App.D.C 21 
 17 App.D.C 333 
 17 App.D.C. 464 
 
 17 App.D.C. 345 
 
 18 App.D.C. 142 
 
 23 App.D.C. 251 
 
 24 App.D.C. 462 
 
 25 App.D.C. 313
 
 44 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Tripler V. Linde ,102 O.G. 1297, 1903 CD. 526, 21 App.D.C. 32 
 
 Trissel V. Thomas ,109 O.G. 809, 1904 CD. 616, 23 App.D.C 219 
 
 Turnball v. Curtis , 1 23 O.G. 23 1 2, 1 906 CD. 732, 27 App.D.C. 567 
 
 Tyler v. Kelch , 98 O.G. 1 282, 1 902 CD. 506, 1 9 App.D.C. 1 80 
 
 Weber v. Flather , 103 O.G. 22G, 1903 CD. 70, 21 App.D.C. 179 
 
 Tyler V. St. Amand ,940.G.1939, 1901C.D.301, 17 App.D.C. 464 
 
 Union Dist. Co. v. Schnei- 
 der ,129 0.G. 2503, 1907 CD. , 29 App.D.C 1 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Bernardin v. 
 
 Duell, Com. of Pat ,86 O.G. 99, 1899 CD. 287, 21 App.D.C. 1 
 
 Shoupe Co. V. Crown Dist. . _ ^ 
 
 Co 97 O.G. 1835. 1901 CD. 208, App.D.C 
 
 Potter V. Cook , 107 O.G. 836, 1903 CD. 446, App.D.C. 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Bronson Co. et 
 
 al. V. Duell, Com. of Pat., 95 O.G. 229, 1901 CD. 330, 17 App.D.C 471 
 
 Steck 98 O.G. 229. 1902 CD. 9. App.D.C 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Na. Phono- 
 graph Co. V. Allen, Com. 
 
 of Pat ,131 O.G. 1133, 1902 CD. 571, 29 App.D.C. 142 
 
 Kephart 103 O.G. 1914. 1903 CD. 137, App.D.C. 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Newcomb Mo- 
 tor Co. V. Moore, Com. of 
 
 Pat ,1330.G. 1680, 1908C.D. , 30 App.D.C. 464 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Newcomb Mo- 
 tor Co. V. Allen, Com. of 
 
 Pat 130 O.G. 302. 1907 CD. . 30 App.D.C. 464 
 
 Hawkins v. Coleman v. 
 
 Thullen 133 O.G. 1188, 1908 CD. . App.D.C. 
 
 McKeen v. Jerdone 134 O.G. 2027, 1908 CD. . App.D.C. 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Stapleton v. 
 
 Duell, Com. of Pat ,95O.G.1049, 1901C.D.359, 17 App.D.C. 575 
 
 U. S. ex rel., State of South 
 
 Carolina v. Seymour, 
 
 Com. of Pat ,660.G.1167, 1894C.D.174, 2 App.D.C. 240 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Steinmetz v. 
 
 Allen, Com. of Pat ,104 O.G. 853, 1903 CD. 578, 22 App.D.C. 56 
 
 steinmetz v. Allen, Com of.,„„ ^^ „„^ 
 
 Pat 102 O.G. 231, 1903 CD. .578, App.D.C 
 
 Steinmetz v. Allen, Com of ,„. ^^ „ „ 
 
 Pat . 104 O.G. 852, 1903 CD. 632, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Prasch '.'.',^9,^ 2-^- 1338, 1904 CD. 105, 20 App.D.C 298 
 
 Ex parte Prasch 109 O.G. 13.39, 1904 CD. 106, 20 App.D.C 298 
 
 Ex parte Emerson 109 O.G. 1610, 1904 CD. 118, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Pickels 109 O.G. 1888, 1904 CD. 126, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Selle HO O.G. 1728, 1904 CD. 222, 26 App.D.C. 331 
 
 Ex parte Schraubstadter., HO O.G. 2016, 1904 CD. 230, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Snyder HO O.G. 2236, 1904 CD. 243, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Law HI O.G. 10.39, 1904 CD. 292, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Craemer et al..,lll O.G. 1040, 1904 CD. 296, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Richardsen ,112 O.G. 1752. 1904 CD. 436, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Ries 113 O.G. 1147, 1904 CD. 503, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Towlev 113 O.G. 1968, 1904 CD. 540, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Thompson 113 O.G. 2.50,5, 1904 CD. 567, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Barnes 115 O.G. 248, 1905 CD. 70, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Galley 115 O.G. 802, 1905 CD. 96, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Steinmetz 117 O.G. 901, 1905 CD. 250, App.D.C 
 
 Ex parte Harris ,117 O.G. 904, 1905 CD. 256, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Frasch 
 
 Ex parte Hamilton et al, 118 O.G. 270, 1905 CD. 335, App.D.C. 
 
 Ex parte Mygatt 118 O.G. 1685, 1905 CD. 410, 20 App.D.C 366 
 
 In re Frasch 122 O.G. 1050, 1905 CD. 649, 27 App.D.C. 25 
 
 In re Heroult 127 O.G. 3219, App.D.C.
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 45 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Wedderburn v. 
 
 Bliss, Sec. Int , 83 O.G. 296, 
 
 U. S. Playing Card Co. v. 
 
 Clark Publishing Co.. . .,132 O.G. 681, 
 
 Varley , 99 O.G. 2323, 
 
 Verley 09 O.G. 1621, 
 
 Viele V. Cummings ,134 O.G. 777, 
 
 Volkmann and Truax ,126 O.G. 2593, 
 
 Wagner ,105 O.G. 1783, 
 
 Spitteler and Krische 131 O.G. 1301. 
 
 Warner v. Smith , 84 O.G. 311, 
 
 Smith V. Warner 85 O.G. 151, 
 
 Estey V. Newton 86 O.G. 800, 
 
 DeWallace v. Scott et al., 88 O.G. 1706, 
 Reichenbach v. Kelley..., 94 O.G. 1188, 
 
 Tyler v. St. Amand 94 O.G. 1970, 
 
 Howard v. Hey 95 O.G. 1648, 
 
 Warner 96 O.G. 1238, 
 
 Adams v. Murphy 96 O.G. 846, 
 
 Oliver v. Felbel 100 O.G. 2386, 
 
 MacDonald v. Edison 105 O.G. 975, 
 
 Winter v. Slick v. Voll- 
 
 kommer 107 O.G. 1660, 
 
 Greenwood v. Dover ,108 O.G. 2144, 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton 110 O.G. 1723, 
 
 Ocumpaugh v. Norton 110 O.G. 1724, 
 
 Smith v. Brooks 112 O.G. 955, 
 
 Matthes v. Burt 114 O.G. 766, 
 
 Rolfe v. Hoffman 121 O.G. 1351, 
 
 Fordyce v. Stoetzel 130 O.G. 2373, 
 
 Warren J34 O.G. 258, 
 
 Watson V. Thomas 108 O.G. 1590, 
 
 Watson V. Thomas 106 O.G. 1776, 
 
 O'Connell v. Schmidt ,118 O.G. 590, 
 
 O'Connell v. Schmidt 122 O.G. 2066. 
 
 Weber and Barry, Jr ,117 O.G. 1494, 
 
 Weeks v. Dale , 
 
 Grosselin 97 O.G. 2980, 
 
 Weiss ,103 O.G. 1918, 
 
 Welch ,125 O.G. 2767, 
 
 Wells V. Reynolds , 69 O.G. 121, 
 
 Estey v. Newton 86 O.G. 800, 
 
 Wells, Jr. V. Reynolds. . . ., 69 O.G. 1507, 
 Westinghouse Jr. v. Duncan, 66 O.G. 1009, 
 
 Boyden Power Brake Co. 
 
 et al. V. Westinghouse 
 
 et al 83 O.G. 1069, 
 
 McGuire v. Hill 84 O.G. 984. 
 
 Newcomb v. Lemp 110 O.G. 308, 
 
 Allen, Com. of Pat., v. U. 
 
 S. ex rel., Geo. A. Lowry 
 
 and Planters Compress 
 
 Co 116 O.G. 2258, 
 
 Jones V. Starr , 117 O.G. 1496, 
 
 Hanson 105 O.G. 2058, 
 
 Schraubstadter 116 O.G. 1185, 
 
 Weston , 94 O.G. 1786, 
 
 Trevette 97 O.G. 1174, 
 
 Creveling Ill O.G. 2489, 
 
 Meinhardt 129 O.G. 3503, 
 
 1898 CD. 413, 12App.D.C.485 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1902 CD. 543, 
 
 1902 CD. 172, 
 
 1908 CD. 
 1906 CD. 
 
 1903 CD. 629, 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1898 
 
 1898 
 1899 
 1899 
 1901 
 1901 
 1901 
 1901 
 1901 
 1902 
 1902 
 
 CD. 
 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 CD. 
 
 517, 
 213, 
 284, 
 416, 
 282, 
 301, 
 375, 
 97, 
 401, 
 565, 
 242. 
 
 1903 CD. 477, 
 
 1904 CD. 66, 
 1904 CD. 207, 
 1904 CD. 207, 
 
 1904 CD. 223, 
 
 1905 CD. 574, 
 
 1906 CD. 588, 
 
 1907 CD. 
 
 1908 CD. 
 
 1904 CD. 587, 
 
 1903 CD. 370, 
 
 1905 CD. 342, 
 
 1906 CD. 662, 
 
 1905 CD. 693, 
 
 1901 CD. 248, 
 
 1903 CD. 546, 
 1906 CD. 758, 
 1894 CD. 510, 
 
 1899 CD. 284. 
 
 1894 CD. 664, 
 1894 CD. 170, 
 
 1898 CD. 443, 
 1898 CD. 134, 
 1904 CD. 146. 
 
 1905 CD. 643, 
 
 1905 CD. 694, 
 
 1903 C.D. 284, 
 1905 CD. 214, 
 
 1901 C.D. 290, 
 
 1901 CD. 170, 
 
 1904 C.D. 353, 
 1907 CD. 
 
 30 App.D.C 208 
 19 App.D.C.597 
 
 19 App.D.C. 597 
 
 30 App.D.C. 455 
 28 App.D.C. 441 
 
 22 App.D.C. 267 
 
 31 App.D.C 271 
 
 13 App.D.C 111 
 
 13 App.D.C. Ill 
 
 14 App.D.C. 50 
 
 15 App.D.C. 157 
 17 App.D.C. 333 
 
 17 App.D.C. 464 
 
 18 App.D.C. 142 
 App.D.C. 
 
 18 App.D.C. 172 
 
 20 App.D.C. 255 
 
 21 App.D.C. 527 
 
 App.D.C. 
 
 23 App.D.C. 251 
 
 24 App.D.C. 296 
 
 25 App.D.C. 90 
 24 App.D.C. 75 
 24 App.D.C. 265 
 
 26 App.D.C. 336 
 App.D.C. 
 
 30 App.D.C. 308 
 23 App. 
 
 23 App. 
 
 27 App. 
 27 App. 
 
 26 App 
 31 App 
 
 App. 
 
 21 App 
 28 App 
 
 4 App 
 
 14 App. 
 
 5 App 
 2 App 
 
 .D.C 65 
 
 D.C 65 
 D.C. 77 
 D.C. 77 
 
 .D.C 29 
 .D.C 498 
 
 D.C 
 
 .D.C 
 .D.C 
 .D.C 
 
 D.C 
 
 .D.C 
 .D.C 
 
 214 
 
 362 
 
 43 
 
 50 
 
 20 
 131 
 
 App.D.C 
 App.D.C. 
 App.D.C 
 
 26 App.D.C 8 
 26 App.D.C. 64 
 
 App.D.C 
 26 App.D.C. 331 
 
 17 App.D.C 431 
 
 App.D.C 
 
 25 App.D.C 530 
 
 App.D.C.
 
 46 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 White , 136 O.G. 1771, 1908 CD. 
 
 Whitney v. Howard ,104 O.G. 1659, 1903 CD. 597, 
 
 Whitson V. Columbia Phono- 
 graph Co , 98 O.G. 418, 1902C.D.497, 
 
 Wickers and Furlong , 1 29 O.G. 2072, 1 907 CD. 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v, Al- 
 bert J29 O.G. 1268, 1907 CD. 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. Mc- 
 
 Kee ,129 O.G. 869, 1907 CD. 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. 
 
 McKee 124 O.G. 908, 1906 CD. 326. 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. 
 
 Upham 129 O.G. 1612, 1907 CD. 
 
 W^ickers and Furlong v. Mc- 
 Kee ,129 O.G. 1269, 1907 CD. 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. Mc- 
 Kee ,129 O.G. 1270, 1907 CD. 
 
 Wickers and Furlong v. Up- 
 ham ,129 O.G. 1612, 1907 CD. 
 
 William Conners Paint Mfg. 
 
 Co ,1230.G. 999, 1906C.D.696, 
 
 Williams ,130 O.G. 1892, 1907 CD. 
 
 Williams v. Ogle , 87 O.G. 1958, 1899 CD. 367, 
 
 Winchester Repeating Arms 
 
 Co. V. Peters Cartridge 
 
 Co ,134O.G.2030, 1908C.D. 
 
 Winslow V. Austin , 86 O.G. 2171, 1899 CD. 301, 
 
 Garrels et al. v. Freeman, 103 O.G. 1684, 1903 CD. 56, 
 
 Kyle V. Corner 113 O.G. 2218, 1904 CD. 559, 
 
 French v. Halcomb 115 O.G. 508, 1905 CD. 81, 
 
 Podlesak and Podlesak v. 
 
 Mclnnerney 120 O.G. 2129, 1906 CD. 558, 
 
 Kempshall v. Royce ,129 O.G. 3164, 1907 CD. 
 
 Woods V. Poor 130 O.G. 1313, 1907 CD. 
 
 Woods V. Poor 126 O.G. 391, 1907 CD. 
 
 Davis V. Horton 136 O.G. 1769, 1908 CD. 
 
 Worster Brewing Corpora- 
 tion v. Rueter & Co ,133 O.G. 1190, 1908 CD. 
 
 Worcester Brewing Cor- 
 poration V. Reuter & 
 Co 133 O.G. 1190, 1908 CD. 
 
 Hansen v. Inland Type 
 
 Foundry 134 O.G. 777, 1908 CD. 
 
 Brawn-Forman Co. v. 
 Beech Hill Distilling 
 Co 134 O.G. 1566, 1908 CD. 
 
 Wurts V. Harrington , 
 
 Wyman v. Donnelly ,104 O.G. 310, 1903 CD. 556, 
 
 Donnelly v. Wyman , 103 O.G. 6.'i7, 1903 CD. 95, 
 
 Brooks V. Smith 110 O.G. 2014, 1904 CD. 223, 
 
 Seeberger v. Dodge 114 O.G. 2384, 1905 CD. 603, 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis 120 O.G. 2444, 1906 CD. 67, 
 
 Turnbull v. Curtis 123 O.G. 2312, 1906 CD. 732, 
 
 Yates V. Huson , 74 O.G. 1732, 1896 CD. 278, 
 
 31 App.D.C607 
 21 App.D.C 28 
 
 18App.D.C565 
 29 App.D.C 71 
 
 29 App.D.C. 23 
 
 29 App.D.C 4 
 
 29 App.D.C. 4 
 29 App.D.C. 30 
 
 29 App.D.C 21 
 29 App.D.C 28 
 
 29 App.D.C. 30 
 
 27 App.D.C. 389 
 
 30 App.D.C. 117 
 14 App.D.C 145 
 
 30 App.D.C. 505 
 14 App.D.C. 137 
 
 21 App.D.C. 207 
 24 App.D.C. 291 
 26 App.D.C 307 
 
 26 App.D.C. 399 
 29 App.D.C. 181 
 
 29 App.D.C 397 
 
 29 App.D.C 397 
 
 31 App.D.C. 601 
 
 30 App.D.C 428 
 
 30 App.D.C. 428 
 App.D.C. 
 
 30 App.D.C. 485 
 
 10 App.D.C 149 
 21 App.D.C. 81 
 
 21 App.D.C 81 
 24 App.D.C. 75 
 24 App.D.C. 476 
 
 27 App.D.C. 567 
 27 App.D.C. 567 
 
 8 App.D.C 93
 
 Alphabetical List of Defendants 
 
 Adams, Glenn v , 
 
 Adams Mfg. Co., Andrew 
 McLean Co. v 
 
 Aglar, Pickles v 
 
 Albert, Wickers and Furlong 
 V 
 
 Allen, Rosell v 
 
 Anderson, Smith v 
 
 Antisdel, Foster v 
 
 Antisdel, Lloyd v 
 
 Appert, Parker v 
 
 Armat, Latham v 
 
 Ashworth, Munster v 
 
 Atterbury, Croskey v 
 
 Austin, Winslow v 
 
 Automatic Scale Co., Com 
 puting Scale Co. v 
 
 Barnett, Couch v 
 
 Barrett, Harter v 
 
 Basch, Hammond v 
 
 Beall Jr., Shuman v 
 
 Beech Hill Dis. Co., Brown 
 Forman Co. v 
 
 Bentley, Burton v 
 
 Bernard, Huebel v 
 
 Bernardin, Northall v 
 
 Bigbie Bros. & Co., Bluthen 
 thai & Bickart v 
 
 Blackman, Alexander v.. . 
 
 Blake, Fenner v 
 
 Bliss, Wedderburn v 
 
 Blood, Brown v 
 
 Boch, Locke v 
 
 Bollee, MacMulkin v.. . . 
 
 Bossart, Pohl v 
 
 Bowes, Howard v 
 
 Boyce, Fowler v 
 
 Bradshaw, Nielson v.. . . 
 
 Breen & Kennedy, Buchan- 
 an etc. Co. V , 
 
 Brinkman, Roberts v 
 
 Brooks, Hilliard v 
 
 Brooks, Smith v 
 
 Brown, Prindle v 
 
 Brown, Rousseau v 
 
 Brown, Traver v 
 
 Browning, Luger v 
 
 Buhoup, Hien v 
 
 Burkholder, Richards v.. . . 
 
 Burt, Matthes v 
 
 Carlton Co., Gaines & Co. v 
 
 Chase, LaFlare v 
 
 Cherney, Clauss v 
 
 Clauss, Cherney v 
 
 Cleal, McCormick v 
 
 Clifford & Newell, Rose v. 
 Clark Publishing Co., U. 8 
 
 Playing Card Co. v 
 
 Columbia Phonograph Co. 
 
 Whitson V 
 
 Cook, McBerty v 
 
 Cooke, Jones & Taylor v. . . 
 
 Copeland, Robinson v 
 
 Cowan, Feinberg v 
 
 Cromwell, Gedge v 
 
 Crone, Bauer v 
 
 Cronemeyer, Lewis & Will 
 
 iams V 
 
 Cummings, McKenzie v.. . . 
 
 Cummings, Viele v 
 
 Curtiss, Turnbull v 
 
 Dale, Weeks v 
 
 Davis & Varney, Mead v.. . 
 
 Dean, Furman v 
 
 Dean, Hansen v 
 
 Dean, Lattig & Goodrum v. 
 
 Decker, Marvel v 
 
 DeSchweinitz, Petrie v.. . . 
 Detroit Stove Co., American 
 Stove Co. v ,
 
 48 
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL. CASES 
 
 Detroit Stove Works and 
 Am. Stove Co., Barstow 
 
 Stove Co. V , 
 
 Dickson, Jenner v , 
 
 Dickinson, Thibodeau v.. . ., 
 
 Doble, Henry v , 
 
 Dodge, Fowler v , 
 
 Dodge, Seeberger v , 
 
 Dolan, Shaifer v , 
 
 Donnelly, Wyman v , 
 
 Dover, Greenwood v , 
 
 Drewsen, Sherwood v , 
 
 Duncan, Westinghouse Jr. v. 
 
 Dyson, Fowler v , 
 
 Edison, Macdonald v , 
 
 Ellis, Christensen v , 
 
 Elwell, Ruete v , 
 
 Farrow, Elipse Bicycle Co. 
 
 V , 
 
 Felbel, Oliver v , 
 
 Fetzer, McKillop v , 
 
 Finkenbeiner, Beals v , 
 
 Fisher, Acting Com. of Pat., 
 
 Snyder v , 
 
 Fleming, Dickey v , 
 
 Flora, Ball v , 
 
 Foley, Smith v , 
 
 Ford, Burr v , 
 
 Fowler, Dodge v , 
 
 Freeman, Carrels v , 
 
 Fuller, Battle Creek etc. v. 
 
 Fullman, Herman v , 
 
 Fynn, Kelley v , 
 
 Garrett, Davis v , 
 
 Geen, Kreag v , 
 
 Getz, Jackson v , 
 
 Giles, Giles Remedy Co. v. 
 
 Gillette, Sendelbach v , 
 
 Goebel, Cobb v , 
 
 Grant, Darnell v , 
 
 Guerrant, Coffee v , 
 
 Haines, Funk v. Matteson v. 
 
 Haines, Funk v , 
 
 Hallwood, Carroll v , 
 
 Halcomb, French v , 
 
 Halle, Slaughter v , 
 
 Hallwood, McCormick v.. ., 
 Hanson, Roe v , 
 
 Hanson, Lotterhand v , 
 
 Hastings, Gallagher v , 
 
 Harrington, Wurts v , 
 
 Hauser, Loomis v , 
 
 Hebbard, Soley v , 
 
 Hendrickson, Silverman v., 
 
 Hepburn, Mason v , 
 
 Herring - Hall - Marvin Co., 
 
 Hall's Safe Co. v , 
 
 Hess, Paul v , 
 
 Hess, Howell Jr. v , 
 
 Hewitt, Moore v , 
 
 Hey, Howard v , 
 
 Hien, Gallagher v , 
 
 Hildreth, Thibodeau v , 
 
 Hinson, Gilman & Brown v. 
 
 Hirner, Kilbourn v , 
 
 Hobart, Goolman v , 
 
 Hodge, Hill v , 
 
 Hodgkinson, Lindmark v.. ., 
 
 Hodgson, Colhoun v , 
 
 Hoffman, Rolfe v , 
 
 Hoffman, Lindemeyer v.. . . , 
 
 Holsclaw, Sobey v , 
 
 Holt, Ingersoll v , 
 
 Holmes, Braunstein v , 
 
 Horton, Davis v , 
 
 Houston, Eastman v , 
 
 Howard, Whitney v , 
 
 Hundhausen, Sachs v , 
 
 Huson, Yates v , 
 
 Ingram, Hall & Ruckel v.. ., 
 International Silver Co., 
 
 Rogers Ltd. v , 
 
 Johnson, Austin v , 
 
 Johnson, Paul v , 
 
 Jones, Busch v , 
 
 Kelley, Miller v , 
 
 Kellogg, Carty v , 
 
 Kellinger, Guilbert v , 
 
 Kelley, Reichenbach v...., 
 
 Kelch, Tyler v , 
 
 Kenney, Lotz v , 
 
 Kenneweg Co., Mich. Con- 
 densed Milk Co. V , 
 
 Leslie, Tracy v , 
 
 Kintner, Kinsman v , 
 
 Kingsley, Milton v ,
 
 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF DEFENDANTS 
 
 t6 
 
 Kinney, Stapleton v , 
 
 Kirkegaard & Jebsen, Ries 
 
 V , 
 
 Knapp, Jackson v , 
 
 Knecht & Son, Gaines & Co. 
 
 V , 
 
 Kyle, Corner v , 
 
 Lalor, Hallwood v , 
 
 Larsson, Jansson v , 
 
 LaTosca Social Club, Orig- 
 inal LaTosca Club v , 
 
 Latshaw, Duff v , 
 
 Leonard, Cutler v , 
 
 Levi, Lane v , 
 
 Lewis Parkes v , 
 
 Linde, Tripler v , 
 
 Lines, Cushman v , 
 
 Loewer, Roos v , 
 
 Long, Hulett v , 
 
 Louden, Porter v 
 
 Lowrie, Taylor & Taylor v. 
 Lyndmark, DeFerranti v.. ., 
 
 McBerty, Fowler v , 
 
 McCaslin, Hunt v , 
 
 McCormick, Robinson v.. . ., 
 
 McDermott, Corry v , 
 
 McDonald Jr. & McDonald, 
 
 Orcutt V , 
 
 McElroy, Bliss v , 
 
 McHenry, Sharer v , 
 
 Mcintosh, Potter v , 
 
 Mclnnerney, Podlesak & 
 
 Podlesak v , 
 
 McRoberts, Doyle v , 
 
 McKee, Wickers and Fur- 
 long V , 
 
 Maltine Co., Peter Schoen- 
 
 hofen Brewing Co. v..., 
 
 Matteson v. Haines, Funk v. 
 
 Martin and Bowne Co., 
 
 Martin v , 
 
 Mauldin, Swihart v , 
 
 Meissner, Murphy v , 
 
 Meissner, Richard v , 
 
 Midgeley, Mell v , 
 
 Moore, Com. of Pat., U. S. 
 of A. ex rel.. The New- 
 comb Motor Co. V , 
 
 Monell, Talbot v , 
 
 Monell & James, Talbot v , 
 
 Mudge, Lempt v , 
 
 Muesser, Johnson v , 
 
 Muller, Schuster Co. v , 
 
 Murphy, Adams v , 
 
 Murphy & Co., Case Bros. v. 
 
 Mygatt, McArthur v , 
 
 Nathan Mfg. Co., Edna 
 
 Smelting Co. v , 
 
 Nelson, Seymour v , 
 
 Newell, Clifford v 
 
 Newton, Estey v , 
 
 Newman, Hopkins v , 
 
 New Iberia Extract of To- 
 basco Pepper Co., Mc- 
 
 Ilhenny's Son v , 
 
 Newman, Exec. J. P. Horn, 
 
 Somers & Co. v , 
 
 Nilson, Andrews v ', 
 
 Noble, Glidden v , 
 
 Norton, Ocumpaugh v , 
 
 Noyes, Christensen v , 
 
 Ogle, Williams v , 
 
 Ohmer, Neth & Tamphn v. 
 Old Lexington Co., Ken- 
 tucky Dist. Co. V , 
 
 Ostrom, Quist v , 
 
 Park, Cain v , 
 
 Parkes, Onderdonk v , 
 
 Parmelee, Hill v , 
 
 Peller, Gibbons v , 
 
 Peters Cartridge Co., Win- 
 chester Repeating Arms 
 
 Co. V , 
 
 Peters, Hisey v , 
 
 Phillips, Cross v , 
 
 Pohle, McKnight v , 
 
 Pohle & Croasdale, Mc- 
 Knight V , 
 
 Pohl, Bossart v , 
 
 Poor, Woods V , 
 
 Powrie, Flora v , 
 
 Pungs, Hien v , 
 
 Pupin, Stone v , 
 
 Read, Miehle v , 
 
 Reynolds, Wells v , 
 
 Reynolds, Wells Jr. v ,
 
 50 
 
 PATENT CITATOR FOR APPEAL CASES 
 
 Rice Jr., Duryea & White v 
 
 Richardson, Larkin v 
 
 Rose, Clifford v 
 
 Rosenbush & Co., Rose 
 
 Shoe Mfg. Co. V 
 
 Rosey, Stern v 
 
 Rothe, Meyer v 
 
 Royce, Kempshall v 
 
 Russell, Ascencio v 
 
 Russell, Seeberger v 
 
 Rueter & Co. Worster 
 
 Brewing Corporation v. . 
 
 Sarfert, Meyer v 
 
 Sawmill, Einstein v 
 
 Schneider, Union Dist. Co 
 
 Schnabel, Shellaberger v.. . 
 
 Schmidt, O'Connell v 
 
 Schellenger, Dunbar v 
 
 Schmertz, Appert v 
 
 Scott, Laas & Sponenburg v 
 
 Scott, DeWallace v 
 
 Scudder, Mergenthaler v.. . 
 
 Seelinger, Robinson v 
 
 Stevens, Schiipphaus v.. . . 
 
 Seher, Stevens v 
 
 Sensenich, Phillips v 
 
 Shipley, Piatt v 
 
 Smith, Warner v 
 
 Simonds, Backus etc. Co. v 
 South Carolina, Seymour v. 
 
 Southgate, Bechman v 
 
 Star Brewery Co., Ehret v. 
 
 Starr, Jones v 
 
 St. Amand, Tyler v 
 
 Stern & Lotz, Harris v 
 
 Stikeman, Hunter v 
 
 Stocker, Felfel v 
 
 Strohm, Kinsman v 
 
 Sturtevant, McNeil v 
 
 Smith, Bruel v 
 
 Sommer, Shellaberger v.. . 
 
 Spaulding, Nordon v 
 
 Swenson, Griffin v 
 
 Tasker, Dashiell v 
 
 Taylor & Taylor, Lowrie v. 
 
 Thomas, Steinmetz v 
 
 Thomas, Trissell v 
 
 Thomas, Watson v 
 
 Tripler, Ostergen v 
 
 Thresher, Robinson v 
 
 Tyler, Arnold v 
 
 Upham, Wickers and Fur- 
 long v 
 
 U. S. ex rel Brodie, Sey 
 
 mour v 
 
 U. S. ex rel., Lowry and 
 
 Planters Compress Co. 
 
 Allen, Com of Pat. v.. . 
 Uri (N. M. Uri & Co. sub 
 
 stituted), Levy & Co. v. 
 
 Vajen, Bader v 
 
 Vogel, Burson v 
 
 Voight, Hope Jr. v 
 
 Washington R. & E. Co. 
 
 Brill V 
 
 Weber, Flather v 
 
 Wells, Anderson v 
 
 Wentworth, Gordon v 
 
 Wende, Horine v 
 
 Weston, Thomson v 
 
 Wictorsohn, Gueniffit, Ben- 
 
 oit & Nicault v 
 
 Wilder, Blackford v 
 
 Wilkin, Cleveland v 
 
 Williams, Liberman v 
 
 Williams, Natural Food Co 
 
 V 
 
 Winquist et al, Durkee Jr 
 
 V 
 
 Whiteley, Funk v 
 
 Wood, Bechman v 
 
 Woodward, Newton v 
 
 Young, Miel v
 
 MR. STODDARD'S 
 PATENT PUBLICATIONS 
 
 PRACTICE 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 
 
 A table of cases construing and defining the several 
 rules of practice and of cases subsequently cited. Pub- 
 lished in Febuary, 1907. 
 
 1 Volume, bound in paper - $1.50 
 
 1 " " ♦* buckram - 2.00 
 
 1 " " " " with patent rules 2.50 
 
 INTERLOCUTORY MOTIONS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 
 
 NOTES TO 
 
 RULES 96=97, 109, 122, 123, 130 and 153 
 
 Published in 1908. 1 volume, buckram $1.10 
 Shipped prepaid on receipt of price. 
 
 FOR SALE BY 
 
 DRAKE LAW BOOK COMPANY 
 DETROIT
 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIOMAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 838 135 2
 
 11,, 
 
 ■''''^illililHlilll'Ulliii. 
 
 (HiSIiiifSliliiKiiii.t-HniiSilJ! 
 
 m