Congressional Edition Volume 6257 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 Excerpt: ...the original--anything new that was not comprised in that--such addition or variance cannot be sustained on the original application. The law does not permit such enlargements of an original specification, which would interfere with other inventors who have entered the field in the meantime, any more than it does in the case of reissues of patents previously granted. Courts should regard with jealousy and disfavor any attempts to enlarge the scope of an application once filed, or of a patent once granted, the effect of which would be to enable the patentee to appropriate other inventions made prior to such alteration, or to appropriate that which has. in the meantime, gone into public use. This court has held that, where no foundation exists in the original application for the claims set up in the amendment, it is the duty of the Commissioner of Patents to reject them. (In re Dilg, C. D., 1905. 620; 115 O. G., 1067; 25 App. D. C, 9; in re Scott, C D, 1905, 665; 117 O. G., 278; 25 App. D. C, 307.) Rule 70 of the Patent Office provides: In original applications which are capable of Illustration by drawing or model ail amendments of the model, drawings, or specifications, and all additions thereto, must conform to nt least one of them as it was at the filing of the application. Matter not found in either, involving a departure from the original invention, can be shown or claimed only in a separate application. Under this rule it is incumbent upon an applicant to correctly describe his invention in the original application. The rule, promulgated by lawful authority, and not being in conflict with any provision of law, has the force of a statute, and must be obeyed. A failure, therefore, to comply with its terms cannot be cured by amendment, but requires a new a...