FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54  
55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   >>  
er disclosed inventions that give any suggestion of novelty are cross-referenced; but the primary purpose of a patent office classification (to aid in determining patentability) has failed in this instance. In the imagined situation respecting pending applications, without doubt diagnosis and classification upon the invention claimed is necessary to effect the purpose of the office classification. Cross-referencing after issue can not undo that which has been done. If no application save that of the nail-machine be pending, no duplication of patents occurs, but the labor of search is increased by reason of the unfamiliarity of the examiner with the inventions he has to search. After the patent is allowed he may find the entire combination of the nail-machine without the counter disclosed in a patent for a nail-making machine, so that as a nail-making machine this new patent is of no value as a reference. Very probably all of the other inventions illustrated (except the counter) are also old in their respective classes; but the examiner of nail-making can not tell this without extensive searches in those classes, so he notes cross-references for them all. _Difficulties due to varying ideas of claims._--Very troublesome questions are constantly arising as to whether an invention should be classified in a combination class or an element class. The point will be illustrated by example: A describes and illustrates an automobile having an internal-combustion motor and a friction-clutch in the motor transmission-gear. He states that the clutch is in the usual relationship to the motor and gearing, but claims a new clutch for whatever it may be adapted. B discloses an internal-combustion motor said to be for automobiles with transmission-gearing and a friction-clutch and claims "in an internal-combustion motor a friction-clutch," etc., specifying the form of the clutch. C makes the same disclosure, but claims "an internal-combustion motor having a specified clutch," while D, with the same disclosure, claims "the combination with the internal-combustion engine of an automobile" of a specified friction-clutch. E claims and illustrates only the friction-clutch. Should these be classified together? If so, in what class? Should a bearing composed of a specified alloy of copper, tin, and antimony, be classed as a bearing or as an alloy? Should a house painted with a mixture of linseed oil, lead oxid, and barium sulphate go to
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54  
55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   >>  



Top keywords:
clutch
 

claims

 

friction

 
combustion
 

internal

 

machine

 
patent
 

combination

 

making

 
classification

Should

 

inventions

 

search

 
counter
 
examiner
 

automobile

 

gearing

 

transmission

 
disclosure
 

bearing


illustrates

 

illustrated

 

classes

 

classified

 

invention

 

office

 

pending

 

purpose

 

disclosed

 

relationship


automobiles

 

discloses

 
adapted
 

states

 

referenced

 
describes
 

instance

 

failed

 

patentability

 

primary


determining

 

suggestion

 
painted
 

classed

 

antimony

 
copper
 

mixture

 
linseed
 
sulphate
 
barium