About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

803 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 1 (1964)

handle is hein.intprop/uspagaz0540 and id is 1 raw text is: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE June 2, 1964 Volume 803 Number 1 PATENTS NOTICES Board of Appeals Decisions Rendered in the Month of April 1964 Examiner affirmed ---------------------------------296 Examiner affirmed in part ---------------------------49 Examiner reversed --------------------------------103 Total ---------------------------------------- 448 Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents The 1963 edition of the Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents has been released from the printer and Is available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402. Price: $4.00. Photoprints as Drawings Rule 84 sets a uniform standard for execution and excel- lence for drawings submitted as part of a complete applica- tion. Rule 85 states that the requirements of Rule 84 relat- ing to drawings will he strictly enforced. Beginning July 1, 1964, the practice of granting a filing date to an application in which photoprints or other copy of a drawing is presented will be discontinued except upon a showing of circumstances of the kind contemplated by Rule 183. Drawings must conform to the standards set by Rule 84, as noticed in Rule 85. April 24, 1964. EDWARD J. BRENNER, Commissioner. Extension of Times in Interferences Statistics recently compiled indicate that the average time elapsing between the declaration and termination of an inter- ference is more than five hundred days and that a large part of this delay is due to extensions of times granted upon stipulations or requests of the parties. It is appreciated that the parties cannot always meet the times set for taking action, but It is highly desirable that extensions of such times be granted only when they are clearly necessary. Accordingly, stipulations or requests for extensions of times in Interferences will be approved only in cases where it is satisfactorily shown that the action due cannot reasonably be completed within the time previously set. April 24, 1964. EDWARD J. BRENNER, Commissioner. Citation of Art by Applicants and Attorneys Since the publication of the Notice of December 10, 1963, relative to the citation of prior art to the Patent Office (797 O.G. 733), a number of inquiries have been received as to the form in which such citations should be submitted, the retention of the citations in the file and their listing in the patent when granted. This citation need not be accompanied by any particular form of statement. It is necessary only to identify the ap- plication and to list the prior art to which it is desired to draw attention. It will be sufficient to state that the art is cited in accordance with the Notice of December 10, 1963, or that it is thought that the art cited may be of interest to the examiner, or that it represents the result of a preliminary search. On the other hand, the person citing the art may, if he so desires, include a specific statement as to how it was located, what its pertinence is considered to be, how the claims distinguish over it, or any other matter which he considers relevant. Some persons have expressed a desire that the art cited by them be listed in the patent as printed, whether or not it is relied on by the examiner in his actions on the appli- cation, and this is the practice which will normally be fol- lowed, unless the art cited is so extensive as to render such listing impracticable. However, in the event that an ap- plicant or attorney desires that the record shall not disclose what art was cited by him, the citation will, if he so requests, be removed from the file prior to the issuance of the patent and the cited art will be listed only to the extent that it is relied on by the examiner. A recent survey of the extent to which prior art citations are being given to the Patent Office by applicants and at- torneys indicates that this is being done in less than ten percent of the applications. It is felt that a much greater response than this is necessary if the Office is to benefit to the extent which is believed to be possible. Accordingly, if the present low rate of citations continues, it will be necessary to reconsider again in the near future the advisability of adopting the proposed amendment of Rule 104 as published in the Federal Register of July 24, 1963 and in 793 O.G. 173 which would make such citations mandatory. EDWARD J. BRENNER, April 24, 1964. Commissioner. Service by Publication Herbert A. Wagner In accordance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office in Patent Cases, notice is hereby given of the filing on October 20, 1961, of an application for patent entitled Head Motion Sensing System, on behalf of New Application Received During April 1964 Patents -------------------- ----- 7,663 Designs ----------------------------------- 470 Plant Patents -----------------------------------15 Reissues ----------------------------------------25 Total ------------------------------------- 8,173 Issu-June 2, 1964 Patents ------- 980-No. 3,134,981 to No. 3,135,960, incl. Designs ------- 54-No. 198,305 to No. 198,358, incl. Plant Patents-- 3-No. 2,407 to No. 2,409, incl. Reissues ------ 4-No. 25,586 to No. 25,589, incl. Total ----- 1041

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most