UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 
 How To Obtain 
 A Patent 
 
 Modern American Law Lecture 
 
 Blackstone Institute, Chicago
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES L. HOPKINS, LL.B. 
 
 One of a Series of Lectures Especially Prepared for the 
 Blackstone Institute 
 
 BLACKSTONE INSTITUTE 
 CHICAGO 
 
 Copyright, 1916, By Blackstone Institute
 
 T 
 
 JAMES L. HOPKINS
 
 JAMES LOVE HOPKINS - 
 
 James Love Hopkins, who contributes the following 
 lecture, is a native of St. Louis, where he was born in 
 1868. After graduating from the public High School 
 he entered Washington University, entering the Law 
 School of that institution at the end of his freshman 
 year. After one year in the Law School he was admitted 
 to the bar, in 1889, and has been practicing law ever 
 since. After six years of practice he completed the law 
 school course, taking the degree of LL.B. in 1895. 
 
 While in general practice, his argument on an insur- 
 ance case led the late Lyne Metcalfe, editor of the Central 
 Law Journal, to ask him to write an article on insurable 
 interest, which was followed by other contributions to 
 that publication, and the article on Disbarment in the 
 Encyclopedia of Pleading and Practice. In this pre- 
 liminary law writing he was encouraged and advised by 
 the late Seymour D. Thompson, editor of the American 
 Law Review, and a talented and scholarly author of 
 many legal texts. 
 
 His first book, Hopkins on Unfair Trade, was pub- 
 lished in 1899, its second edition was published in 1905 
 under the title Hopkins on Trademarks, and the third 
 edition is now in press, being the first American text on 
 the subject to attain a third edition. His two-volume 
 work on Patents was recently published and has been 
 accepted as a standard authority. His hand-book on 
 the New Equity Rules, dedicated to the late Mr. Justice 
 Lurton of the United States Supreme Court, was se- 
 lected by the Department of Justice for the use of the 
 Federal judges and district attorneys throughout the 
 United States. Hopkins' Judicial Code has also gone 
 into extensive use. The treatises on Banks and Trust 
 Companies and Unfair Competition and Good Will, in 
 Modern American Law, were written by Mr. Hopkins. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins has been in Federal practice exclusively 
 since 1898, and has never held public office. He is a 
 member of the Committee on Admission to the Bar of 
 the United States District Court at St. Louis. 
 
 As to his practice, his name is familiar to all users of 
 the Federal Reporter. He has appeared as special 
 Patent Counsel for the City of St. Louis and for the City 
 and County of San Francisco.
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 
 
 By 
 JAMES L. HOPKINS, LL.B. 
 
 1. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The Patent Office of the United States has what is 
 sometimes loosely called a "bar" of its own. But 
 that bar is made up of men of varying legal attain- 
 ments, ranging from leaders of the real patent bar 
 lawyers not only admitted to the bar but qualified 
 to act as counsel in advisory and litigated questions 
 of patent law down to mere "solicitors" of patents, 
 who are, in many cases, utterly ignorant of law. This 
 astonishing condition of things has been deplored by 
 the bar generally, and is due to the following Patent 
 Office rule, under which no legal education is a pre- 
 requisite to admission to practice in that department. 
 
 "A register of attorneys will be kept in this office, 
 on which will be entered the names of all persons 
 entitled to represent applicants before the Patent 
 Office in the presentation and prosecution of appli- 
 cations for patent. The names of persons in the 
 following classes will, upon their written request, be 
 entered upon this register : 
 
 (a) Any attorney at law who is in good standing 
 in any court of record in the United States or any of 
 
 5
 
 6 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 the States or Territories thereof and shall furnish a 
 certificate of the clerk of such United States, State, 
 or Territorial court, duly authenticated under the 
 seal of the court, that he is an attorney in good 
 standing. 
 
 (b) Any person not an attorney at law who is a 
 citizen or resident of the United States and who 
 shall file proof to the satisfaction of the Commis- 
 sioner that such person is of good moral character 
 and of good repute and possessed of the necessary 
 legal and technical qualifications to enable him to 
 render applicants for patents valuable service and is 
 otherwise competent to advise and assist them in the 
 presentation and prosecution of their applications 
 before the Patent Office." 
 
 The Patent Office is a part of the Department of 
 the Interior, and is under the direction of the Com- 
 missioner of Patents, the duties of whose office call 
 for legal attainments of a high order. The present 
 Commissioner, Thomas Ewing, of New York, and 
 Ben Butterworth, among his predecessors, are strik- 
 ing examples of the combination of legal education 
 and executive ability required in this position. 
 
 In the vast range of scientific work which is pre- 
 sented to the Patent Office, there are developed many 
 peculiar specialties. Certain men specialize in hy- 
 draulics, others in electricity, etc., just as do the 
 inventors they represent. The soliciting of a patent 
 must be grounded upon a basic knowledge of the law 
 of contracts ; for a patent is merely a contract between 
 the inventor and the public as parties ; the considera- 
 tion of the grant of the patent is the disclosure, in
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 7 
 
 full and apt terms, of a new and useful invention. 
 If the disclosure is not such as to teach the public 
 (those skilled in the art to which the invention re- 
 lates) how to practice the invention after the monop- 
 oly has expired, there is a want of consideration; 
 and so, if the thing is not new, there is no considera- 
 tion, if it is not useful (within the meaning of the 
 patent statute) there is no consideration. Again, the 
 thing patented may be new, and may be useful, but 
 if its production did not embody invention there is 
 no consideration for the grant of the patent and it 
 will be held void. So much to show the vital neces- 
 sity of a working knowledge of the law of contracts 
 by one who attempts to solicit a patent. 
 
 Next comes the patent statute that is to say, all 
 of the enactments of Congress concerning the issu- 
 ance of patents which are now in force ; and this is 
 outlined in Judge Holt's monograph on Patents in 
 Modern American Law. 
 
 Next come the Rules of the Patent Office, promul- 
 gated by the Commissioner under the express statu- 
 tory authorization of Congress ; these rules have the 
 force and effect of statute law, in so far as they are 
 not in conflict with statutes of the United States. 
 
 It follows from what has been said that no inven- 
 tion should be intrusted to a patent solicitor who is 
 not a lawyer ; the inventors who have done otherwise 
 have suffered enormous losses. Nor does it follow 
 that the ablest patent lawyers can always obtain valid 
 patents. The law of patents has been termed "the 
 metaphysics of the law." There is no department 
 of the law more difficult, more exacting, or in which
 
 8 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 costly errors are more apt to be made, even by the 
 most learned and painstaking lawyers. But it is the 
 duty of the lawyer in general practice to warn his 
 clients interested in inventions of the danger of in- 
 trusting the most difficult of all legal writing to any 
 but skilled legal guides. And it is the duty of the 
 student who would qualify himself to practice patent 
 law to ground himself firmly in the common law of 
 contracts before attempting to study the statutes and 
 rules with which he is to be concerned. Once armed 
 with knowledge of the law of his subject, he need 
 have no fear of shortcoming in mechanics, chemistry 
 or other technical knowledge. That is supplied by the 
 inventor, and by mechanical experts. The law of 
 patents is so highly developed, so intricate, and so 
 unsettled in many vital particulars that the patent 
 lawyer can never acquire perfect knowledge of the 
 law. The best patent lawyers approach each new 
 case with an open mind as to the facts, gather the 
 facts from those skilled in the subject to which the 
 invention relates, and apply the law to those facts. 
 What is loosely called "scientific reading" has its 
 place in eqiiipping the patent lawyer, but that place 
 is always secondary to mastery of the patent law. 
 
 2. THE FIRST CONSULTATION. 
 
 The inventor brings his lawyer a model, saying, "I 
 want a patent on this shoe-last. " Looking at the 
 model, it appears to be an ordinary wooden last, the 
 heel and toe sections being joined by a curious and 
 ingenious hinge. So the lawyer advises, "What you 
 want is a patent for this hinge" a new thought to
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 9 
 
 the inventor, who afterwards draws royalty for the 
 use of that hinge used in structures other than shoe- 
 lasts. 
 
 This typical case illustrates the importance of the 
 lawyer finding out what the invention really is. Im- 
 portant here to know you are right before going 
 ahead. 
 
 3. THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. 
 
 Frequently a search, called a "pre-ex.," is made 
 to ascertain whether the thing in question is probably 
 patentable. Such searches can only be conveniently 
 made in the reference room in the Patent Office, 
 where copies of issued patents are kept in an at- 
 tempted classification. The question of classification 
 is very troublesome, and is under constant considera- 
 tion and revision by the Patent Office. 
 
 4. THE DRAWING. 
 
 Deciding that the client has a patentable invention, 
 we call in the draftsman to illustrate a preferred 
 embodiment of the invention. The Patent Office 
 drawing is highly technical, and quite beyond the skill 
 of the ordinary mechanical draftsman. The case 
 must be fully but not too fully illustrated. The 
 drawing must be on bristol board of certain quality 
 and size, with certain marginal lines and certain sig- 
 natures of the inventor (may be by attorney) and 
 witnesses. Then, too, certain symbols indicate by a 
 few lines complicated electrical structures, while cer- 
 tain shadings indicate wood, or glass, or other mate- 
 rial. Much depends on how the invention is pic-
 
 10 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 tared, and a good drawing is a good foundation for 
 the lawyer's work. 
 
 N 
 
 5. CONSTITUENT PARTS OP THE APPLICATION. 
 
 Every application for patent comprises a petition, 
 a description, one or more claims, and the oath. 
 There is usually a drawing, and a power of attorney, 
 the latter being embodied in the same instrument with 
 the petition. The word " specification" usually and 
 in a technical sense embraces the drawing, descrip- 
 tion and claims; but in the often-used expression, 
 "specification and claims," the word specification 
 means the description alone. 
 
 6. THE PETITION. 
 
 The petition will be best understood by reading the 
 form therefor prescribed by the Patent Office. 
 
 "To the Commissioner of Patents: 
 
 Your petitioner, , a citizen of the United 
 
 States and a resident of , in the county of 
 
 and State of (or subject, etc), whose post-office 
 
 address is , prays that letters patent may be granted 
 
 to him for the improvement in , set forth in the 
 
 annexed specification. 
 
 Signed at . , , in the county of and State 
 
 of , this day of , 19 .. 
 
 7. THE DESCRIPTION. 
 
 The descriptive part of the specification is of vital 
 importance. It begins with a short description, then 
 describes briefly the various figures shown in the 
 drawings, then proceeds with a detailed description,
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 11 
 
 followed, preferably, by a distinct and separate de- 
 scription of the operation of the machine, in a ma- 
 chine application. The best way to study style and 
 terminology is to study copies of well solicited pat- 
 ents. Here note that, if the same invention is sub- 
 mitted to fifty patent lawyers, it is quite impossible 
 that any two of them would use identical language in 
 describing it; clearness, conciseness, accuracy, free- 
 dom from ambiguity, are to be found in the really 
 fine work done in Patent Office practice. 
 The rules provide (Rule 39), 
 
 "The following order of arrangement should be observed in 
 framing the specification: 
 
 (1) Preamble stating the name and residence of the ap- 
 
 plicant and the title of the invention. 
 
 (2) General statement of the object and nature of the 
 
 invention. 
 
 (3) Brief description of the several views of the drawings 
 
 (if the invention admits of such illustration). 
 
 (4) Detailed description. 
 
 (5) Claim or claims. 
 
 (6) Signature of applicant." 
 
 The description should be written with the mind 
 firmly fixed on the new thing the inventor has pro- 
 duced. The prior art meaning the same class of in- 
 vention in the past may be referred to, to point out 
 what new result the inventor has accomplished, or 
 what old result he has procured in a new, and cheaper, 
 or quicker, or otherwise better, way. 
 
 Finally, it is an excellent plan to write the claims 
 before writing the description. The claim defines 
 what the inventor has patented to him, and its terms 
 of art must be based on corresponding antecedent
 
 12 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 language in the description. Therefore, writing the 
 claims first establishes the verbiage to be used in the 
 description, and, better still, crystallizes the inven- 
 tion in the scrivener's mind so that in his description 
 he writes always with a view to emphasizing that 
 which is new. 
 
 8. THE CLAIMS. 
 
 Judge Holt, in Modern American Law, has de- 
 fined the claim, and pointed out its essentials. Re- 
 peating what has been said above, the claim should 
 be written first. It should be confined to the smallest 
 number of elements present in the invention which 
 have novelty as a combination, and which form, as 
 Judge Holt has elucidated, a true combination as 
 distinguished from an aggregation. There is no dan- 
 ger of having too many claims as many as you have 
 the patience to write, and the good fortune to get 
 allowed; for each claim is a patent in itself, and 
 either claim may be held void in litigation without 
 in anywise affecting the validity of the other. 
 
 To learn how to write claims, study the claims that 
 have been through the fire of litigation. Let us take 
 as an example this claim: "A switch pin having 
 a resilient tongue pivoted within or upon its tip, as 
 set forth." This is claim 1 of U. S. Letters Patent 
 No. 223,969, issued January 27, 1880, to Watts, for 
 "An electrical switch pin," and the claim was ad- 
 judged valid by Judge Morris, 77 Federal Reporter, 
 page 895. What a thing of beauty this claim is 
 not a superfluous syllable, no shadow of ambiguity. 
 Just one grave defect the words "as set forth"
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 13 
 
 should not have been used. They add nothing to the 
 value of the claim, and, like " substantially as de- 
 scribed" are not only surplusage, but may be held to 
 be words of limitation. 
 
 So beginning with the simplest combination in the 
 invention, having the fewest elements, we will claim 
 the more complex combinations until we have the 
 invention guarded against what the infringer of the 
 future will try to do by way of using the principle 
 of our invention, but with a change of form, or varia- 
 tion in mode of operation, which will give the defend- 
 ant room to argue non-infringement when brought 
 to book. 
 
 Claims for a machine may be drawn to any part of 
 the machine, or to the machine as a whole though 
 such "omnibus" claims are seldom worth the paper 
 they are written on, if the machine is at all compli- 
 cated. Claims for an article of manufacture should 
 cover separately and severally each of its patentable 
 features. In claims for compositions of matter only 
 the indispensable ingredients should be included, 
 with their proportions. Processes or methods con- 
 sist of two or more stages or operations usually 
 called steps, and the claim should be drawn to only the 
 indispensable steps, and in their proper order. 
 
 In design patents there can be but a single claim, 
 
 and that is "The ornamental design for a , 
 
 substantially as shown." 
 
 9. THE OATH. 
 
 The following form of oath is prescribed by the 
 Patent Office:
 
 14 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 ss. 
 
 . . , the above-named petitioner, being sworn 
 
 (or affirmed), depose, and say. . that citizen. . of 
 
 and resident. . of , that 
 
 verily believe . . ; to be the original, first, and 
 
 inventor. . of the improvement in described and 
 
 claimed in the annexed specification ; that do . . not know 
 
 and do. . not believe that the same was ever known or used 
 
 before invention or discovery thereof, or patented or 
 
 described in any printed publication in any country before 
 
 invention or discovery thereof, or more than two years 
 
 prior to this application, or in public use or on sale in the 
 United States for more than two years prior to this application ; 
 that said invention has not been patented in any country foreign 
 
 to the United States on an application filed by or 
 
 legal representatives or assigns more than twelve months prior 
 to this application; and that no application for patent on said 
 
 improvement has been filed by or representatives 
 
 or assigns in any country foreign to the United States, except 
 
 as follows : 
 
 Inventor's full name : 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 
 
 , 19.. 
 
 (Signature of justice or notary) 
 
 (Seal) 
 
 (Official character)" 
 
 Here we must have a care to decide whether the 
 invention is sole or joint. If a joint invention there 
 must be joint applicants and a joint oath, or the re- 
 sulting patent will be void. Conversely, if a sole in- 
 vention, a joint oath will vitiate the patent. Practi- 
 cally, where a group of men work on the development 
 of an invention there is nearly always difficulty in 
 determining who are the real inventors, or whether 
 it is a sole or joint invention. This is a constantly
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 15 
 
 recurring question in the office of the active patent 
 practitioner, and frequently requires great care in 
 its consideration. 
 
 10. THE SEAL OF THE NOTARY. 
 
 The Patent Office rule requires 
 
 "When the oath is taken before an officer in any country in- 
 cluding the United States, all the application papers must be 
 attached together and a ribbon or tape passed one or more times 
 through all the sheets of the application, and the ends of said 
 ribbon or tape brought together under the seal before the latter 
 is affixed and impressed, or each sheet must be impressed with 
 the official seal of the officer before whom the oath was taken, or, 
 if he is not provided with a seal, then each sheet must be initialed 
 by him." 
 
 11. THE FILING. 
 
 Now having our application written and signed 
 and sworn to, a fee of $15.00 entitles us to file it, and 
 starts the examiner on a task that is often worth hun- 
 dreds of dollars to the applicant, in bringing the rele- 
 vant prior art to light. The case must be filed within 
 30 days from the date of the oath, or a new oath will 
 be required. A filing receipt bearing the date of its 
 issuance and the serial number of the application is 
 furnished by the Patent Office. The application 
 holds that serial number until the patent is printed 
 for issue, when it is given a new and final patent 
 number. 
 
 12. THE FIRST OFFICIAL ACTION. 
 
 The application having been received by the 
 Patent Office and the filing receipt issued, the appli- 
 cation is assigned to its proper division for exami-
 
 16 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 nation. It then awaits its turn for examination. 
 The examiner, upon reaching it, examines it draw- 
 ing, description and oath for informalities, such as 
 defects in the drawings, want of signatures of wit- 
 nesses, failure of the notary to affix his seal, and the 
 like. Then he examines the description, to under- 
 stand the invention and see that it is sufficiently 
 described. Then the claims, to see if they are good in 
 form, and sustained by antecedent description. Then 
 the merits and here begins the real test of the learn- 
 ing and skill of the examiner. He may cite us to 
 encyclopedias, scientific texts, patents of any foreign 
 country, or may describe old and unpatented things 
 within his own knowledge as having been in use. 
 See Drawbaugh v. Seymour, 77 Official Gazette, 318. 
 The statute reads : 
 
 "4893. On the filing of any such application and the pay- 
 ment of fees required by law, the Commissioner of Patents shall 
 cause an examination to be made of the alleged new invention 
 or discovery; and if on such examination it shall appear that 
 the claimant is justly entitled to a patent under the law, and 
 that the same is sufficiently useful and important, the Commis- 
 sioner shall issue a patent therefor." 
 
 Bo if our application is in proper form, and we 
 show and describe a new and useful invention, the 
 application is allowed at this stage. But usually the 
 first action is a rejection of all or a part of the claims, 
 and when this is the case an official letter gives us 
 the grounds of rejection. The statute reads : 
 
 "4903. Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent 
 is rejected, the Commissioner shall notify the applicant thereof, 
 giving him briefly the reasons for such rejection, together with 
 such information and references as may be useful in judging
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 17 
 
 of the propriety of renewing his application or altering his 
 specification; and if, after receiving such notice, the applicant 
 persists in his claim for a patent, with or without altering his 
 specifications, the Commissioner shall order a re-examination of 
 the case." 
 
 13. DIVISION OF APPLICATIONS. 
 
 While no U. S. Patent has ever been held bad 
 because containing more than one invention, and 
 the statute is silent upon the subject, it is obvious 
 that there must be some rule as to this. We find in 
 the Rules the following: 
 
 "41. Two or more independent inventions can not be claimed 
 in one application ; but where several distinct inventions are de- 
 pendent upon each other and mutually contribute to produce a 
 single result they may be claimed in one application. 
 
 42. If several inventions, claimed in a single application, be 
 of such a nature that a single patent may not be issued to cover 
 them, the inventor will be required to limit the description, 
 drawing, and claim of the pending application to whichever 
 invention he may elect. The other inventions may be made the 
 subjects of separate applications, which must conform to the 
 rules applicable to original applications. If the independence of 
 the inventions be clear, such limitation will be made before any 
 action upon the merits; otherwise it may be made at any time 
 before final action thereon, in the discretion of the examiner. 
 
 A requirement of division will not be repeated without the 
 written approval of a Law Examiner. After a final require- 
 ment of division, the applicant may elect to prosecute one group 
 of claims, retaining the remaining claims in the case with the 
 privilege of appealing from the requirement of division after 
 final action by the Examiner on the group of claims prosecuted. ' ' 
 
 In practice the application of these rules is usually 
 wholesome, and division required only where there 
 are clearly present more than one invention. But 
 in exceptional cases the rule is administered arbi-
 
 18 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 trarily arid with no apparent reason save to make two 
 applications grow where but one grew before. The 
 subject is too difficult to dwell upon here. The 
 opinion of Mr. Justice McKenna in the United States 
 ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 48 L. Ed. 
 563, may be read for fuller treatment of this topic. 
 
 14. AMENDMENT. 
 
 The right to amend the application is given by 
 statute. The Patent Office rule is 
 
 "68. The applicant has a right to amend before or after the 
 first rejection of action; and he may amend as often as the 
 examiner presents new references or reasons for rejection. In 
 so amending, the applicant must clearly point out all the patent- 
 able novelty which he thinks the case presents in view of the 
 state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objec- 
 tions made. He must also show how the amendments avoid such 
 references or objections. 
 
 After such action upon an application as will entitle the 
 applicant to an appeal to the examiners-in-chief (Rule 134), or 
 after such appeal has been taken, amendments canceling claims 
 or presenting those rejected in better form for consideration on 
 appeal may be admitted; but the admission of such an amend- 
 ment or its refusal, and any proceedings relative thereto, shall 
 not operate to relieve the application from its condition as 
 subject to appeal, or to save it from abandonment under Rule 
 171. If amendments touching the merits of the application are 
 presented after the case is in condition for appeal, or after 
 appeal has been taken, they may be admitted upon a showing, 
 duly verified, of good and sufficient reasons why they were not 
 earlier presented. From the refusal of the primary examiner 
 to admit an amendment a petition will lie to the Commissioner 
 under Rule 145. No amendment can be made in appealed cases 
 between the filing of the examiner's statement of the grounds 
 of his decision (Rule 135) and the decision of the appellate 
 tribunal. After decision on appeal amendments can only be 
 made as provided in Rule 142, or to carry into effect a recom- 
 mendation under Rule 139.*'
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 19 
 
 The amendment may extend to both drawing, 
 description and claims. The amendment frequently 
 goes to the length of cancelling the entire description 
 and the claims, and re-writing the whole. Certain 
 formalities are provided for by rule. 
 
 "73. In every amendment the exact word or words to be 
 stricken out or inserted in the application must be specified and 
 the precise point indicated where the erasure or insertion is to 
 be made. All such amendments must be on sheets of paper 
 separate from the papers previously filed, and written on but 
 one side of the paper. Erasures, additions, insertions, or muti- 
 lations of the papers and records must not be made by the 
 applicant. ' ' 
 
 "Amendments and papers requiring the signature of the 
 applicant must also, in case of assignment of an undivided part 
 of the invention, be signed by the assignee." 
 
 "74. When an amendatory clause is amended, it must be 
 wholly rewritten, so that no interlineation or erasure shall 
 appear in the clause, as finally amended, when the application 
 is passed to issue. If the number or nature of the amendments 
 shall render it otherwise difficult to consider the case, or to 
 arrange the papers for printing or copying, the examiner may 
 require the entire specification to be rewritten. ' ' 
 
 4894, R. S. U. S., and Rule 77, both fix the time 
 limit of amendment at one year after the date of the 
 last official notice of action by the Patent Office. 
 
 The difficulty involved in amending may be greatly 
 lessened by a personal interview with the examiner ; 
 a half hour in consultation will often save months of 
 correspondence. Such interviews, under Rule 152, 
 cannot be had before the first official action of the 
 application. A number of the older examiners are 
 veritable walking encyclopedias of technical knowl- 
 edge. The more able the examiner the more certain
 
 20 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 he is to treat the applicant and his attorney with 
 patience, courtesy, and helpful suggestions. Many a 
 valuable claim is suggested by the examiner, who is 
 almost always alert in understanding and appreciat- 
 ing a really novel and valuable invention. It is no 
 part of the examiner's duty to antagonize the appli- 
 cant, and in practice he seldom does. It is clearly 
 the examiner's duty to see that claims are properly 
 limited or rejected; first, because he must protect 
 the public in not granting a monopoly on something 
 the public already has the right to use; second, 
 because the inventor should be protected against waste 
 of time and money on a thing which is not patent- 
 able ; third, to protect possible investors from being 
 deceived into making idle investments. Many of the 
 cleverest swindlers pose as inventors or promoters 
 of patent property. So the task of the examiner is 
 one involving judicial functions, in which he must 
 not be swerved from the right course by indifference, 
 sympathy, favoritism or interest. And the examin- 
 ing corps lives up to this high standard with extra- 
 ordinary fidelity. 
 
 15. APPEALS. 
 
 Assuming that the primary examiner has twice 
 rejected our application, we have the right of appeal 
 to the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, consisting of 
 three members, who hold their hearings in the Pat- 
 ent Office, where we may be heard orally if we indi- 
 cate our desire at the time of filing the appeal. (Rule 
 137.) The appeal fee is $10.00. "The appeal must 
 set forth in writing the points of the decision upon 
 

 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 21 
 
 which it is taken, and must be signed by the applicant 
 or his duly authorized attorney or agent. " (Rule 
 133.) The primary examiner briefs the case against 
 us in the form of an " Examiner's statement" (Rule 
 135). 
 
 If defeated by the Board, we may appeal to the 
 Commissioner, by paying $20.00 as an appeal fee. 
 The Examiner's statement and the opinion of the 
 Board are both in the lists against us, and if we are 
 again beaten we go to the Court of Appeals of the 
 District of Columbia, a general appellate tribunal 
 for the inferior courts of Washington. This appeal 
 must be taken within forty days from the date of the 
 Commissioner's decision, by filing with him a notice 
 of appeal and an assignment of reasons of appeal. 
 Then we file a certified transcript of the Patent 
 Office record of the case with the Clerk of the Court 
 of Appeals, and there file a petition for appeal 
 addressed to that court, and make a deposit of $15.00 
 with the clerk. The clerk then estimates the cost of 
 printing the record, which of course depends upon 
 the length of the record. We then pay the clerk the 
 amount called for by his estimate, he has the record 
 printed and the cause docketed. The Court of Ap- 
 peals consists of the Chief Justice and two Associate 
 Justices, and serves as a means of keeping the Patent 
 Office rules and practice in conformity to the letter 
 and the spirit of the statutes. The court seldom 
 reverses a decision in which all of the tribunals of 
 the Patent Office have concurred. On such appeals 
 in ex parte cases the Commissioner is represented 
 by counsel.
 
 22 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 16. ACTIONS TO COMPEL THE GRANT OF LETTERS 
 
 PATENT. 
 
 As Judge Holt has pointed out in section 90 of his 
 monograph on Patents, in Modern American Law, 
 this is a statutory action seldom resorted to in ex 
 parte cases ; nevertheless we will give it passing con- 
 sideration, as the remedy provided for ultimate 
 review of the refusal of an application for patent. 
 The statutory provision reads: 
 
 4915. "Whenever a patent on application is refused, either 
 by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court (now 
 the Court of Appeals) of the District of Columbia upon appeal 
 from the Commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill 
 in equity; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice 
 to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge 
 that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a 
 patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or for any 
 part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. ' ' 
 
 The statute further provides that all the expenses 
 of the proceedings shall, if there is no party depend- 
 ent other than the Commissioner, be paid by the 
 applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor 
 or not. 
 
 Such cases are to be tried on all competent evi- 
 dence adduced, and are not limited to the record that 
 was before the Patent Office. The action is governed 
 by the usual rules obtaining and in force in the Fed- 
 eral courts of equity. This express statutory remedy 
 has been held to exclude the resort to mandamus as 
 a means of reviewing the Patent Office decision in 
 finally refusing a patent; but mandamus may be 
 employed to review decisions of the Patent Office 
 on other subjects, such as its power to pass a certain
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 23 
 
 rule of procedure, when the rule is alleged to contra- 
 vene the statute. It has been held that the proceeding 
 under this section is a proper means of compelling 
 the grant of a reissue application. The object of the 
 enactment was to preclude the finality of decisions 
 refusing a patent, just as the courts have never 
 treated the affirmative action of the Patent Office in 
 granting an application, or deciding an interference, 
 as having more than prima facie weight. As the suc- 
 cessful applicant for a patent must have his day in 
 court, and an adjudication of validity before his 
 patent is regarded as anything more than a grant of 
 the right to file a suit, so the unsuccessful applicant 
 is given his day in court to the end of securing a 
 strictly judicial adjudication upon his rights. 
 
 17. INTERFERENCES; GENERAL CONSIDERATION. 
 
 Under the authority of 4904, Revised Statutes of 
 the United States, the Patent Office has adopted the 
 following rules defining interferences, and the cases 
 in which they will be declared : 
 
 "93. An interference is a proceeding instituted for the pur- 
 pose of determining the question of priority of invention between 
 two or more parties claiming substantially the same patentable 
 invention. The fact that one of the parties has already obtained 
 & patent will not prevent an interference, for, although the Com- 
 missioner has no power to cancel a patent, he may grant another 
 patent for the same invention to a person who proves to be the 
 prior inventor. 
 
 94. Interferences will be declared between applications by 
 different parties for patent or for reissue when such applica- 
 tions contain claims for substantially the same invention which 
 are allowable in the application of each party, and interferences 
 will also be declared between applications for patent, or for
 
 24 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 reissue, and unexpired original or reissued patents, of different 
 parties, when such applications and patents contain claims for 
 substantially the same invention which are allowable in all of 
 the applications involved : Provided, That where the filing date 
 of any applicant is subsequent to the filing date of any patentee, 
 the applicant shall file an affidavit that he made the invention 
 before the filing date of the patentee. 
 
 Parties owning applications or patents which contain con- 
 flicting claims will be required before an interference is de- 
 clared to show cause why these claims shall not be eliminated 
 from all but one of the applications or patents of common 
 ownership." 
 
 18. THE DECLARATION OP INTERFERENCE, AND 
 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 
 
 When an interference is found to exist, it is the 
 duty of the primary examiner to establish the issues 
 of the interference, that is to say, claims identical in 
 terms, and which can be read upon the drawing and 
 description of each of the parties. There is no limit 
 to the number of parties, three or more applications 
 being frequently involved in the same interference. 
 These interfering claims are called "counts" in inter- 
 ference practice. All of the preliminaries being 
 arranged, the applications are forwarded to the Ex- 
 aminer of Interferences, who sits at a Court of First 
 Instance in these cases. He first reviews the work 
 of the Primary Examiner, to see whether the issues 
 have been clearly defined and whether the notices of 
 interference are clear in language and correct in 
 form ; if there be any material disagreement between 
 him and the Primary Examiner, it is reviewed by the 
 Commissioner (Rules 98 and 99) . The Examiner of 
 Interferences formally declares an interference by 
 forwarding notices to each of the parties, in which
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 25 
 
 are fixed the dates within which " preliminary state- 
 ments" must be filed. The preliminary statement 
 must conform with the requirements of the rules, 
 which are as follows: 
 
 ' ' 110. Each party to the interference will be required to file 
 a concise preliminary statement, under oath, on or before a date 
 to be fixed by the Office, showing the following facts: 
 
 (1) The date of original conception of the invention set 
 
 forth in the declaration of interference. 
 
 (2) The date upon which the first drawing of the inven- 
 
 tion and the date upon which the first written de- 
 scription of the invention was made. 
 
 (3) The date upon which the invention was first disclosed 
 
 to others. 
 
 (4) The date of the reduction to practice of the invention. 
 
 (5) A statement showing the extent of use of the inven- 
 
 tion. 
 
 (6) The applicant shall state the date and number of 
 
 any application for the same invention filed within 
 twelve months before the filing date in the United 
 States, in any foreign country adhering to the 
 International Convention for the Protection of 
 Industrial Property or having similar treaty rela- 
 tions with the United States. 
 
 If a drawing has not been made, or if a written description 
 of the invention has not been made, or if the invention has not 
 been reduced to practice or disclosed to others or used to any 
 extent, the statement must specifically disclose these facts. 
 
 When the invention, was made abroad the statement should 
 set forth : 
 
 (1) That the applicant made the invention set forth in 
 
 the declaration of interference. 
 
 (2) Whether or not the invention was ever patented; if 
 
 so, when and where, giving the date and number of 
 each patent, the date of publication, and the date 
 of sealing thereof. 
 
 (3) Whether or not the invention was ever described in 
 
 a printed publication ; if so, when and where, giv- 
 ing the title, place, and date of such publication.
 
 26 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 (4) When the invention was introduced into this coun- 
 try, giving the circumstances with the dates con- 
 nected therewith, which are relied upon to establish 
 the fact. 
 
 The preliminary statements should be carefully prepared, as 
 the parties will be strictly held in their proofs to the dates set 
 up therein. 
 
 If a party prove any date earlier than alleged in his pre- 
 liminary statement, such proof will be held to establish the date 
 alleged and none other. 
 
 The statement must be sealed up before filing (to be opened 
 only by the Examiner of Interferences; see Rule 111), and the 
 name of the party filing it, the title of the case, and the subject 
 of the invention indicated on the envelope. The envelope should 
 contain nothing but this statement. 
 
 111. The preliminary statements shall not be opened to the 
 inspection of the opposing parties until each one shall have been 
 filed, or the time for such filing, with any extension thereof, 
 shall have expired, and not then unless they have been examined 
 by the proper officer and found to be satisfactory. 
 
 Any party in default in filing his preliminary statement shall 
 not have access to the preliminary statement or statements of 
 his opponent or opponents until he has either filed his state- 
 ment or waived his right thereto, and agreed to stand upon his 
 record date. 
 
 A party who alleges no date in his preliminary statement 
 earlier than the filing of the application or applications of the 
 other party or parties shall not have access to the preliminary 
 statement of said party or parties. 
 
 112. If, on examination, a statement is found to be defective 
 in any particular, the party shall be notified of the defect and 
 wherein it consists, and a time assigned within which he must 
 cure the same by an amended statement ; but in no case will the 
 original or amended statement be returned to the party after it 
 has been filed. Unopened statements will be removed from 
 interference files and preserved by the office, and in no case will 
 such statements be open to the inspection of the opposing party 
 without authority from the Commissioner. If a party shall 
 refuse to file an amended statement he may be restricted to his 
 record date in the further proceedings in the interference.
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 27 
 
 113. In case of material error arising through inadvertence 
 or mistake, the statement may be corrected on motion (see Rule 
 153), upon a satisfactory showing that the correction is essential 
 to the ends of justice. The motion to correct the statement must 
 be made, if possible, before the taking of any testimony, and as 
 soon as practicable after the discovery of the error. 
 
 114. If the junior party to an interference, or if any party 
 thereto other than the senior party, fails to file a statement, or 
 if his statement fails to overcome the prima facie case made by 
 the respective dates of application, such party will be notified 
 by the examiner of interferences that judgment upon the record 
 will be rendered against him at the expiration of thirty days, 
 unless cause is shown why such action should not be taken. 
 "Within 'this period any of the motions permitted by the rules 
 may be brought. Motions brought after judgment on the record 
 has been rendered will not be entertained unless sufficient rea- 
 sons appear for the delay. 
 
 115. If a party to an interference fail to file a statement, 
 testimony will not be received subsequently from him to prove 
 that he made the invention at a date prior to his application. 
 
 116. The parties to an interference will be presumed to have 
 made the invention in the chronological order in which they 
 filed their completed applications for patents clearly disclosing 
 the invention ; and the burden of proof will rest upon the party 
 who shall seek to establish a different state of facts. 
 
 117. The preliminary statement can in no case be used as 
 evidence in behalf of the party making it. ' ' 
 
 There are many preliminary motions which may 
 be made in interference cases. One usually employed 
 is the motion to dissolve the interference upon the 
 ground that there has been informality in creating 
 the interference, or that a claim is not patentable to 
 one of the parties, or that one of the parties has no 
 right to make the claim in interference, or that counts 
 of the issue have different meaning in the different 
 cases or applications involved in the interference. 
 Motions of this kind are accompanied by a motion to
 
 28 
 
 transmit to the Law Examiner, and if the motion to 
 transmit is granted, the Law Examiner passes upon 
 the motion or motions to dissolve. 
 
 19. TESTIMONY IN INTERFERENCE CASES. 
 
 Interference cases involve the question of priority 
 alone; although there are many cases in which the 
 issue is said to be one of originality rather than one 
 of priority, meaning that one of the parties claims 
 that another party was not an independent inventor, 
 or an inventor at all, of the subject matter, but merely 
 stole the invention from his opponent. The Patent 
 Office rules 154, 158, both inclusive, provide for the 
 manner of taking testimony, service of notices, form 
 of certificate of the officer by whom the depositions 
 are taken, and these rules must be strictly adhered 
 to because of the provision of Rule 159 that " evi- 
 dence touching the matter at issue will not be con- 
 sidered on the hearing which shall not have been 
 taken and filed in compliance with these rules." As 
 the rules are extremely arbitrary, they must be 
 closely studied and followed in every particular. 
 It may be well to observe that documentary evidence 
 should always be used, where it exists, in preference 
 to unsupported oral testimony. 
 
 The taking of testimony by the several parties 
 reverses the order in which their applications were 
 filed, the burden of proof resting upon the one having 
 the most recent filing date. 
 
 The testimony being taken and printed, the case 
 is briefed and argued before the Examiner of Inter- 
 ferences, whose judgment is in the form of an award
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 29 
 
 of priority to one of the parties, or as to different 
 parties in relation to the several counts in interfer- 
 ence. Unless his decision is appealed from, Letters 
 Patent will issue to the successful party or parties. 
 
 20. APPEALS IN INTERFERENCE CASES. 
 
 The defeated party in an interference has the 
 right to an appeal, the series of appeals being from 
 the Examiner of Interferences to the Board of 
 Examiners-in-Chief, from the Board of the Com- 
 missioner, and from the Commissioner to the Court 
 of Appeals of the District of Columbia. If the 
 three tribunals of the Patent Office concur in their 
 decisions, the result is seldom reversed by the Court 
 of Appeals. The decision of the Court of Appeals, 
 in turn, may be reviewed under 4915, Revised Stat- 
 utes of the United States, quoted above. The num- 
 ber of appeals possible, and the expensive method 
 of taking testimony have made interference pro- 
 cedure a subject of much adverse criticism. There 
 have been attempts to eliminate the appeal to the 
 Board of Examiners-in-Chief, and other attempts 
 to provide for a single hearing in the Patent Office, 
 from the result of which an appeal would lie to the 
 Court of Appeals. But these attempts have been 
 unavailing thus far.
 
 30 
 
 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 FORMS OF PATENT APPLICATIONS. 
 
 Application for Patent on a Machine. The Form Provided by 
 the Patent Office. 
 
 THESIZE OF THE SHEET MUST BE EXACTLY 
 10 * 15 INCHES. SEE RULE E 
 
 THI55PACC MUST BE EIGHT INCHES
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 31 
 
 To all whom it may concern: 
 
 Be it known that I, , a citizen of the United 
 
 States, residing at , in the county of and State 
 
 of (or subject, etc.), have invented a new and useful 
 
 meat-chopping machine, of which the following is a specification : 
 
 My invention relates to improvements in meat-chopping ma- 
 chines in which vertically reciprocating knives operate in con- 
 junction with a rotating chopping block; and the objects of my 
 improvement are, first, to provide a continuously lubricated 
 bearing for the block ; second, to afford facilities for the proper 
 adjustment of the knives independently of each other in respect 
 to the face of the block ; and, third, to reduce the friction of the 
 reciprocating rod which carries the knives. 
 
 I attain these objects by the mechanism illustrated in the 
 accompanying drawing, in which 
 
 Figure 1 is a vertical section of the entire machine ; Fig. 2, a 
 top view of the machine as it appears after the removal of the 
 chopping block and knives ; Fig. 3, a vertical section of a part of 
 the machine on the line 1 2, Fig. 2 ; and Fig. 4, a detailed view in 
 perspective of the reciprocating crosshead and its knives. 
 
 Similar letters refer to similar parts throughout the several 
 views. 
 
 The table or plate A, its legs or standards B B, and the hanger 
 a, secured to the underside of the table, constitute the framework 
 of the machine. In the hanger a turns the shaft D, carrying a 
 fly-wheel E, to the hub of which is attached a crank o, and a 
 crank-pin p, connected by a link b, to a pin passing through a 
 crosshead G, and to the latter is secured a rod H, having at its 
 upper end a crosshead I, carrying the adjustable chopping knives 
 d d, referred to hereinafter. 
 
 The crosshead G, reciprocated by the shaft D, is provided with 
 anti-friction rollers e e, adapted to guides / /, secured to the 
 underside of the table A, so that the reciprocation of this cross- 
 head may be accompanied with as little friction as possible. 
 
 To the underside of a wooden chopping block J is secured an 
 annular rib k, adapted to and bearing in an annular groove i in 
 the table A. (See Figs. 1 and 2.) This annular groove or chan- 
 nel is not of the same depth throughout, but communicates at one 
 or more points (two in the present instance) with pockets or 
 receptacles j j wider than the groove and containing supplies of 
 oil, in contact with which the rib h rotates, so that the continuous 
 lubrication of the groove and rib is assured. The rod H passes 
 through and is guided by a central stand K, secured to the table 
 A, and projecting through a central opening in the chopping 
 block without being in contact therewith, the upper portion of 
 the said stand being contained within a cover k, which is secured
 
 32 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 to the block, and which prevents particles of meat from escaping 
 through the central opening of the same. 
 
 The cross-head I, previously referred to, and shown in per- 
 spective in Fig. 4, is vertically adjustable on the rod H, and can 
 be retained after adjustment by a set-screw x, the upper end of 
 the rod being threaded for the reception of nuts, which resist the 
 shocks imparted to the cross-head when the knives are brought 
 into violent contact with the meat or the chopping-block. 
 
 The knives d d are adjustable independently of each other and 
 of the said cross-head, so that the coincidence of the cutting-edge 
 of each knife with the face of the chopping-block may always be 
 assured. 
 
 I prefer to carry out this feature of my invention in the man- 
 ner shown in Fig. 4, where it will be seen that two screw-rods 
 m m rise vertically from the back of each knife and pass through 
 lugs n n on the cross-head, each rod being furnished with two 
 nuts, one above and the other below the lug through which it 
 passes. The most accurate adjustment of the knives can be 
 effected by the manipulation of these nuts. 
 
 A circular casing p is secured to the chopping-block, so as to 
 form on the same a trough P for keeping the meat within proper 
 bounds; and on the edge of the annular rib h, secured to the 
 bottom of the block, are teeth r, for receiving those of a pinion q, 
 which may be driven by the shaft D through the medium of any 
 suitable system of gearing, that shown in the drawing forming no 
 part of my present invention. 
 
 This shaft D may be driven by a belt passing round the pulleys 
 s, or it may be driven by hand from a shaft "W, furnished at one 
 end with a handle t, and at the other with a cog-wheel R, gearing 
 into a pinion on the said shaft D. 
 
 A platform T may be hinged, as at w, to one edge of the table 
 A, to support a vessel in which the chopped meat can be depos- 
 ited. The means by which it may be supported are shown in full 
 lines, and the most convenient method of disposing of it when 
 not in use is shown in dotted lines, in Fig. 1. 
 
 I am aware that prior to my invention meat-chopping machines 
 have been made with vertically-reciprocating knives operating in 
 conjunction with rotating chopping-blocks. I therefore do not 
 claim such a combination broadly ; but 
 
 I claim : 
 
 1. The combination, in a meat-chopping machine, of a rotary 
 chopping-block having an annular rib, with a table having an 
 annular recess and a pocket communicating with the said recess, 
 all substantially set forth. 
 
 2. In a meat-chopping machine, the combination of a rotary 
 chopping-block with a reciprocating cross-head carrying knives, 
 each of which is vertically adjustable on the said cross-head inde- 
 pendently of the other, substantially as described.
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 33 
 
 3. The knife d, having two screw-rods, m m, attached to its 
 back, substantially as shown, for the purpose specified. 
 
 4. The combination, in a meat-chopping machine, of the recip- 
 rocating rod, carrying the knives, the cross-head secured to the 
 said rod, and having anti-friction rollers, with guides, adapted to 
 the said rollers, all substantially as set forth. 
 
 Witnesses : 
 
 Application for Product and Process; as Embodied in the 
 
 Letters Patent. 
 
 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 
 
 ARCHIBALD S. B. LITTLE, OF NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. PAINT 
 COMPOSITION AND PROCESS OF MAKING SAME. 
 
 1,072,476. Specification of Letters Patent. Patented Sept. 9, 1913. No 
 Drawing. Application filed October 16, 1912. Serial No. 726,051. 
 
 To all whom it may concern: 
 
 Be it known that I, ARCHIBALD S. B. LITTLE, a subject of 
 the King of Great Britain, residing at Nashville, in the county 
 of Davidson and State of Tennessee, have invented a new and 
 useful Paint Composition and Process of Making the Same, of 
 which the following is a specification. 
 
 The paint forming the subject-matter of the present inven- 
 tion has special application in connection with the shell of 
 gas-holders or gasometers. This shell dips as is well known 
 into a body of water more or less saturated with light oils 
 such as hydrocarbon oils, benzol, and the like deposited thereon 
 by condensation from the carbureted water-gas. 
 
 The object of my invention is to produce a paint which 
 when spread over the surface of the gasometer shell, will resist 
 the action of these oils, the coat of paint being thus left 
 unimpaired and protecting the metal of which the shell is 
 constructed. 
 
 The process or method of compounding the ingredients of 
 the paint may be described as follows : To prepare the vehi- 
 cle of my compound I dissolve for example fifty (50) pounds 
 of rosin in its own weight of petroleum spirit such as gasolene, 
 benzin (or equivalent hydrocarbon). I then heat 50 pounds 
 of linseed oil (raw or boiled) with five (5) pounds of red 
 lead and five (5) pounds of litharge to a consistence such as 
 to solidify on cooling. This mixture (of linseed oil, red lead, 
 and litharge) while hot is dissolved in fifty (50) pounds of 
 turpentine. This solution is then mixed with the solution of
 
 34 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE 
 
 rosin in the petroleum spirit referred to and serves as the 
 vehicle. To make a durahle paint, a proper proportion (to 
 suit the painter) of Venetian red (red oxid, or equivalent 
 mineral or carbon pigments or any combination of the same) 
 is added ; and if it be desired that the paint shall dry quickly 
 it may be thinned with gasolene, and just before applying, 
 adding a little red lead thinned down with sufficient boiled 
 linseed oil to cause the mixture to pass through a 120 mesh 
 sieve before running it into the bulk, stirring the latter during 
 the admixture. To the mass (with or without the final admix- 
 ture of strained red lead aforesaid) is added about four (4) 
 per cent, by weight of zinc chromate, when the compound is 
 ready for use. 
 
 If the ingredients are mixed in smaller quantities, the same 
 relative proportions by weight as outlined above should be 
 adhered to, the specific weights given serving merely as an 
 example. To maintain the proper relative proportions, and 
 at the same time vary the weights of the ingredients, would 
 obviously fall within the purview of the practical painter. 
 
 Having described my invention, what I claim is : 
 
 1. In the manufacture of paint, the process of dissolving a 
 quantity of resin in a hydrocarbon then heating a quantity of 
 linseed oil mixed with red lead and litharge to a consistence 
 such that the mass solidifies on cooling, dissolving said mass 
 while hot in a suitable quantity of turpentine, and adding the 
 solution to the original solution of resin and hydrocarbon. 
 
 2. In the manufacture of paint, the process of dissolving a 
 suitable quantity of rosin in its own weight of petroleum 
 spirit, heating a mixture of linseed oil with a quantity of red 
 lead and litharge to a point where the mass solidifies on cool- 
 ing, dissolving said mass while hot in turpentine, and adding 
 the solution to the original solution of rosin and petroleum 
 spirit. 
 
 3. In the manufacture of paint, the process of dissolving 
 fifty pounds of rosin in its own weight of benzin, heating fifty 
 pounds of linseed oil with five pounds of red lead and five 
 pounds of litharge to a point where the mass solidifies on cool- 
 ing, dissolving said mass while hot in fifty pounds of turpen- 
 tine, and adding thereto the original solution of rosin in 
 benzin. 
 
 4. In a paint composition the combination of a vehicle com- 
 posed of a solution of fifty pounds of rosin in fifty pounds of 
 benzin, mixed with a solution of fifty pounds of linseed oil 
 solidified with five pounds of red lead and five pounds of 
 litharge, in fifty pounds of turpentine, a pigment mixed 
 therewith, and a metallic chromate forming about four per 
 cent, of the entire mixture. 
 
 5. In a paint composition the combination of a vehicle com-
 
 HOW TO OBTAIN A PATENT 35 
 
 posed of a solution of fifty pounds of rosin in fifty pounds of 
 benzin, mixed with a solution of fifty pounds of linseed oil 
 solidified with five pounds of red lead and five pounds of 
 litharge, in fifty pounds of turpentine, an insoluble pigment 
 mixed therewith, and four per cent, by weight of the entire 
 mass, of zinc chromate. 
 
 6. In a paint composition the combination of a vehicle com- 
 posed of a solution of fifty pounds of rosin in fifty pounds of 
 benzin, mixed with a solution of fifty pounds of linseed oil 
 solidified with five pounds of red lead and five pounds of 
 litharge, in fifty pounds of turpentine, a mineral pigment 
 mixed therewith, a gasolene thinner, and four per cent, by 
 weight of the entire mass, of zinc chromate. 
 
 7. In a paint composition the combination of a vehicle com- 
 posed of a solution of fifty pounds of rosin in fifty pounds of 
 benzin, mixed with a solution of fifty pounds of linseed oil 
 solidified with five pounds of red lead and five pounds of 
 litharge, in fifty pounds of turpentine, a mineral pigment 
 mixed therewith, a gasolene thinner, red lead thinned with 
 boiled linseed oil to cause the mixture to pass through a 120 
 mesh sieve, and substantially four per cent, of zinc chromate. 
 
 In testimony whereof I affix my signature, in presence of 
 two witnesses. 
 
 ARCHIBALD S. B. LITTLE. 
 Witnesses : 
 
 GILBERT LITTLE, 
 NATALIE L. GABRIEL.

 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 . r- CT I vWW'ifhlch it was borrowed. 
 ff EUU1 VCr^ ' 
 
 2 1 1992 
 
 EMS LIBRARY
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 GAYIAMOUNT" 
 .PAMPHIET BINDER 
 Syracuse, N.Y. 
 Stockfon, Colif. 
 
 000 690 092 2