HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.intprop/uspagaz0283 and id is 1 raw text is: Patents Nos. 1,366,895 to 1,367,527.
THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE
OF THE
Vol. 283-No. 1.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1921.
[PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 4, 1921.]
Price-$5 per year.
The OFFICIAL GAZETTE Is mailed under the direction of the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, to whom all subscriptions should be made payable and all communications respecting the Gazette should be
addressed. Issued weekly. Subscriptions, 85.00 per annum; single numbers, 10 cents each.
Printed copIes of patents are furnished by the Patent Office at 10 cents each. For the latter, address the Commissioner
of Patents, Washington, D. C.
CoN' E 29~l Trs Page.
ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 1, 1921 .
INTERFERENCE NOTICE.......
ADVERSE DECISIONS IN INTERFERENCE....................1
PATENT OFFICE PUBLICATIONS..........................1
INTERFERENCE DEFINED...............................1
APPLICATIONS UNDER EXAMINATION......................2
PATENTS GRANTED.... ...............................3
REISSUES...... ...................................128
DESIGNS. ........................................... 129
TRADE-MARKS-REGISTRATION APPLIED FOR ............... 17
TRADE-MARK REGISTRATIONS GRANTED................... 167
LABELS. ........................................... 178
PRINTS................. 180
COMMISSIONER'_S --ECISIONS-
Ex parte Inderrieden C in.........
v~.......o. 1281
The Adapti Company e.Anderson Eectric Specialty Co. 181
Ex paNe Halvorsen .............................. 182
DECISIONS OF THE U. S. COURTS-
The Denver Gas & Electric Light Company v. The Alex-
ander Lumber Company...IN .TE...................... 182
In re Lower ........ .......................... 183
In re '.illiam Schluderberg & Son................... 184
RANGES It CLASSIFICATIONn...in ........................ 184
Issue of February 1, 1921.
Patents ..........633-No. 1,66895 to No. 1,367,527, inclusive.
Trade-Marks. 240-No. 139,234 to No. 139,473, inclusive.
Den ........... 8-No. 57,030 to No. 7,067, inclusive.
L es ...........75-No. 22,452 to No. 22,526, inclusive.
Prints............. 14--No. 5,483 to No. 5,496, inclusive.
Reissues............ 1-No. 15,036.
Total . 1001
Interference Notice.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE,
Washington, D. C., January 14, 1921.
Harrison M. Graces, his assigns or legal representatives,
take notice:
An interference having been declared by this Office
between the application of the Scranton Distributing and
Mfg. Co., 504 Lackawanna avenue, Scranton, Pa., for
registration of a trade-mark and trade-mark registered
June 23, 1908, No. 69,584, to Harrison M. Graves, 150
Nassau street, New York, .N. Y., and a notice of such
declaration sent by registered mail to said Harrison M.
Graves at the said address having been returned by the
post-office undeliverable, Lotice is hereby given that
unless said Harrison M. Graves, his assigns or legal
representatives, shall enter an appearance therein within
thirty days from the first publication of this order the
interference will be proceeded with as in case of default.
This notice will be published in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE
for three consecutive weeks.
L. B. MANN,
Assistant Commissioner.
Adverse Decisions in Interference.
PATENT No. 1,261,367. (ERRATA.)
The publication of two claims of Patent No. 1,261,367
in GAZETTE of January 18, 1921, was an error and is re-
called.
PATENT No. 1,261,367.
On January 11, 1921, a decision was rendered that
Edward Danner was not the first inventor of the sub-
ject-matter covered by claim 6 of his Patent No. 1,261,367,
subject, Apparatus for forming' sheet-glass, and no ap-
peal having been taken within the time allowed such de-
cision has become final.
PATENT No. 1,261,366.
On January 11, 1921, a decision was rendered that Ed-
ward Danner was not- the first inventor of the subject-
matter covered by claim 16 of his Patent No. 1,261,366,
subject, Method of forming sheet-glass, and no appeal
having been taken within the time allowed such decision
has become final.
PATENT No. 1,308,819.
On December 27, 1920, a decision was rendered that
Burt E. Taylor was not the first inventor of the subject-
matter covered by claims 12 and 13 of his Patent No.
1,308,819, subject, Evaporating apparatus, and no
appeal having been taken within the time allowed such
decision has become final.
PATENT NO. 1,337,257.
On December 29, 1920, a decision was rendered that
Arthur Moreland McQuinn was not the first inventor of
the subject-matter covered by claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 of his
Patent No. 1,337,257, subject, Sizer and grader, and
no appeal having been taken within the time allowed such
decision has become final.
Patent Office Publications.
The stock of publications, exclusive of printed copies
of patents, formerly held for sale by the Patent Office, has
been transferred to the Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office. Orders for Patent Office
publications should NOT be sent to the Patent Office, but
to the Superintendent of Documents, to whom. all re-
mittances for such publications should be made payable.
Printed copses of specifications and drawings of patents
will be furnished by the Patent Office, as heretofore.
Interference Defined.
RULE 93. An Interference is a proceeding Instituted for
the purpose of determining the question of priority of in-
vention between two or more parties claiming substantially
the same patentable invention. In order to ascertain
whether any question of priority arises the Commissioner
may call upon any junior applicant to state in writing the
date when he conceived the Invention under consideration.
All statements filed in compliance with this rule will be
returned to the parties filing them. In case the applicant
makes no reply within the time specified, not less than
ten days, the Commissioner will proceed upon the assump-
tion that the said date is the date of the oath attached to
the application. The fact that one of the parties has al-
ready obtained a patent will not prevent an interference,
for, although the Commissioner has no power to cancel
a patent, he may grant another patent for the same in-
vention to a person who proves to be the prior Inventor.
n tc tatef5sp a tet Office](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.intprop/uspagaz0283&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)