no power to take evidence vivá voce sealed a patent without prejudice to the opponent on appeal. It appeared that Evans and the opponent Cutting had been jointly experimenting upon the invention, and Cutting had obtained a patent for the invention without opposition from Evans. The law officer decided that Evans should have a patent on each of the two assigning one half of his patent to the other; but on its appearing that Otway could not be found to agree to this, the order was cancelled, and instead it was ordered that the application should be refused on the terms that Cutting should assign one half of his patent to Evans, the parties thereafter to share in paying the fees, or in default, either party to be at liberty to pay and to retain the patent as security for repayment of his share. (Griff. 279.)

(ƒ) GarthwaitE'S PATENT. [1886]

Patent for fish biscuits for dogs held to be the joint invention of the applicant and King the opponent. King applied for a patent for an invention which appeared to the examiner to be the same, but the applicants thinking them different, asked the comptroller to issue a patent on Garthwaite's application to them jointly, and to grant King a patent, striking out all matter covered by Garthwaite's specification. The Comptroller-General refused to do this, but granted separate patents on each assigning one half to the other and agreeing to pay half the fees. (Griff. 284.)

(f1) LUKE'S PATENT. [1886]

It appeared that part of the merit of the applicant's invention for improvements in machines for slubbing, roving, &c., fibrous materials was due to the opponent. The law officer, following the precedent set in Russell's patent (p. 43 (c)), ordered the grant on condition that the parties should agree, the patentee to secure to the opponent the rights of a joint patentee, the opponent to undertake to take no proceedings for revocation of the patent. If the applicant refused to agree, the application was to be dismissed with costs; if the opponent refused to agree, the grant was to be allowed unconditionally with costs. (Griff. 294.)

In 1884 Paterson applied for a patent for improved apparatus for expanding the ends of casks and firkins, leaving a provisional specification in which was described a firkin expander, consisting of segments not overlapping. On June 5, 1885, Dundon applied for a patent, leaving a provisional specification which shewed a firkin expander, consisting of a hoop with the ends overlapping. On July 29, 1885, Paterson filed his complete specification and therein included Dundon's overlapping band. Each one opposed the other's patent on the ground that it had been obtained from him. Dundon's application was granted, and Paterson was required to amend by confining his complete specification to the segmental apparatus. (Griff. 295.)

(h) DAVID AND WOODLEY. [1886]

Davey, S.G.: "If a workman is employed by an inventor to make a model for the purpose of carrying out his invention, and the workman suggests improvements in detail of the machine, which are adopted in the machine or model as completed, those suggestions are the property of his employer, and the workman cannot afterwards take out a patent for them." (2 Griff. 26.)

(i) EDMUND'S PATENT. [1886]

Query, whether the words "legal representative" in sect. 11 of the Patents Act, 1883, include a person holding a power of attorney.

The words "on the ground of the applicant having obtained the invention from him," in this section are intended to apply to communications between persons in the United Kingdom and Isle of Man, and not to communications from abroad. The person importing an invention into the realm is the true and first inventor, and for the purposes of the application it matters not under what circumstances he has obtained the invention abroad, and this is not altered by the Act of 1883. The importer may be liable to the person from whom he has obtained the invention abroad in respect of the breach of some contract or duty, but those are matters which the law officer and the Comptroller-General cannot inquire into. (Griff. 281.)

FIECHTER'S APPLICATION (referred to in Edmund's patent).

Application for a patent for improvements in dust-collecting apparatus. A communication from Kirk and Fender of America refused on the ground that Fiechter never had authority from Kirk and Fender to apply for a patent, he having offered to become their agent in England and been refused. (Griff. 284.)

(k) LAKE'S APPLICATION (Edmund's patent followed). [1888] (5 0. R. 415.)

(1) NEWMAN'S APPLICATION (2). [1888]

The remarks of Lord Herschell in Hoskins' patent (p. 44 (c)) approved by Webster, A.G. It is not to the interest of the patentee or of the public that the description of an invention should be general when it can only be supported as a description of an improvement. (5 O. R. 279.)

(1) MARSHALL'S APPLICATION. [1888]

The invention was admittedly obtained from the opponent, but the applicant alleged that the opponent went with him to a patent agent and instructed him to make the application, and suggested that it should be in the name of the applicant only. The application was refused. (5 0. R. 661.)

(m) HOMAN'S APPLICATION. [1888]

The applicant, who had previously obtained a patent for

improvements in fire-proof floors, now applied for a further patent for improvements in fire-proof floors in which bricks of a particular construction were to be used, and were separately claimed as new. The opponent, who had formerly been employed by the applicant in making samples of bricks for experimental purposes, had already registered as a design the same form of brick:-Held, by the law officer that the applicant was the person entitled to claim originality in the matter, and was entitled to a patent without amendment and without joining the opponent. (6 O. R. 104.)

(n) GRIFFIN'S APPLICATION. [1889]

The application was refused on the ground that the invention had been obtained from the opponent. (6 O. R. 296.)

(0) DIETZ'S PATENT. [1889]

The patent was allowed, and the opponent not appearing, his appeal was dismissed with costs. (6 O. R. 297.)

Application-Opposition on the ground that the Invention has been patented in this country.

(p) In re STOLL'S PATENT. [1853]

An application for the sealing of a patent which, with the consent of the petitioner and the opposing party, the Lord Chancellor had referred to the Assistant Commissioner in the Patent Office for his opinion as to whether there was an infringement of a patent already granted, was, upon that officer's opinion being unfavourable to the petitioner, refused. (21 L. T. Rep. 233.)

(9) In re TOLSON'S PATENT. [1856]

Letters patent sealed in a case where the evidence showed great similarity between the alleged invention and one for which a patent was already in force. (6 De G., M. & G. 422.)

(r) Ex parte YATES. [1869]

The patent was refused on the ground that the invention was a colourable imitation of one which was the subject of an existing patent. (L. R., 5 Ch. 1.)

8) In re MANCEAUX'S PATENT. [1870]

Letters patent will not be sealed where a prior patent has been granted for the same invention, and there is no fraud, although the validity of the first patent is disputed. (L. R., 6 Ch. 272; 18 W. R. 1184.)

(t) In re SCOTT AND YOUNG'S PAtent.

[1871]

Whether an objection to the sealing of a patent, on the ground of a prior patent having been granted, can be made where no complete specification of the prior patent has been filed, quære. (18 W. R. 425.)

Who may oppose.

(u) GLOSSOP'S PATENT. [1884]

A manufacturer who has purchased a prior patent which is alleged to be an anticipation, and has been working under it, has a right to be heard in opposition although his patent has become public property. Quære, whether one of the public is entitled to be heard. (Griffin, 285.)

(v) LANCASTER'S PATENT. [1884]

Opposition may be grounded on a patent which has expired. (Griff. 293.)

(w) HOOKHAM'S APPLICATION. [1886]

Glossop's case approved. A person who merely comes forward as one of the public will not be allowed to strike out a paragraph of a specification on the ground of a prior patent. (2 Griff. 32.)

(a) DUNDON'S PATENT. [1886]

Quære whether an applicant, whose patent has not been sealed, has a locus standi to oppose. (Griff. 278.)

(y) GREEN'S PATENT. [1886]

The parts in the applicant's specification which were objected to by the opponents were included in the opponent's complete, but it was alleged not in their provisional specification:-Held, that this variance, if proved, would not prevent the opposition from being successful. (Griff. 286.)

(z) BAILEY'S PATENT. [1886]

The words "patented in this country," in sect. 11 (1) of Patents Act, 1883, do not include inventions which have only received provisional protection, and consequently the existence of such inventions is not a ground of opposition. (Griff. 269.)

(a) L'OISEAU AND PIERARD'S APPLICATION. [1887]

A patentee who has lodged a provisional specification and has left a complete specification which has been accepted is entitled to oppose, although no patent has been granted, by virtue of sect. 15 of the Patents Act, 1883. (2 Griff. 36.)

(b) EVERITT'S APPLICATION. [1888]

A foreign patentee who is entitled to have his patent antedated under sect. 103 of the Patents Act, 1883, so as to be prior in date to an application, is not entitled to oppose the application on the ground that the invention had been patented by him on an application of prior date. (2 Griff. 28.)

(c) HALL AND HALL'S APPLICATION. [1888]

Patent opposed on the ground (amongst others) that an invention which was patented by the opponent in 1871 would come within

the general terms of the fourth claim :-Held, that this was so, and that the fact that the patent of 1871 had expired was rather a reason for mentioning it than for not mentioning it in the specification. (5 0. R. 283.)

(d) MACEVOY'S APPLICATION. [1888]

A person who has no interest in prior patents, except that he has manufactured under one of them, is not entitled to oppose on the ground of the invention being comprised in such prior patents. (5 O. R. 285.)

(e) BAIRSTOW'S APPLICATION. [1888]

The Comptroller-General, under sect. 11 of the Patents Act, 1883, cannot inquire into the means by which the applicant has obtained an invention abroad. A person who is going to work the invention contained in prior patents is not entitled to oppose on the ground of such patents existing. (5 O. R. 286.)

(f) WEBSTER'S APPLICATION. [1888]

The inventions claimed were: (1) In the manufacture of wire ropes the improvements consisting in making all the strands compound, i.e. each strand having some of its wires laid in one direction and the rest in the other. (2) The laying up into a rope compound strands either (a) all having thin external wires in the same direction as the lay of the rope, (b) all except one, or (c) with the direction of the external wires to the right and left hand alternately: -Held, that if the compound strand was new, it was amply protected by the first claim, and that if it was not new, the specification did not purport to disclose any invention in the mode of laying up an old strand, and that therefore the second claim was not required and must be struck out.

Webster, A.G.: "Where a patentee, upon the face of both the provisional and final specification, has disclosed a new element... and proceeds to use that in an old way without indicating any invention in the mode of use, any person who has a patent or is interested in a patent for the old way has a right to come forward and say, This is a claim which ought not to be inserted in the specification unless there is a distinct claim to invention in the way in which this is proposed to be applied." (6 O. R. 163, at p. 165.)

Insertion of disclaiming Clause.

(9) TEAGUE'S PATENT. [1885]

The applicant described and showed on his drawings certain parts of a rock drill which were protected by the opponent's patent. The opponent was allowed to elect whether he would have those parts struck out or a disclaiming clause inserted. (Griff. 298.)

(h) WELCH'S PATENT. [1985]

Application for patent for making bricks, &c., from refuse slate opposed on the ground of a prior patent for a similar process

E