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/uspagaz0565 and id is 1 raw text is: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE
July 5, 1966
Volume 828
Number 1
PATENTS
NOTICES
Board of Appeals Decisions Rendered in the Month of
May 1966
Examiner affirmed --------------------------------245
Examiner affirmed in part --------------------------46
Examiner reversed --------------------------------82
Total --------------------------------------373
Disclaimer
3,128,99.-Bernard W. Young, Waco, Tex. APPARATUS
FOR FORMING AND APPLYING MIXTURES. Patent
dated Apr. 14, 1964. Disclaimer filed Mar. 29, 1966, by
the assignee, Raymond T. Young.
Hereby enters this disclaimer to claim 1 of said patent.
TITLE 37-PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND
COPYRIGHTS
Chapter I-Patent Office, Department of Commerce
PART 1-RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
Express Abandonment of Patent Application
The following amended 1 1.138 is adopted to take effect
upon publication in the Federal Register.
The purpose of the amendment is to make possible the
elimination of the delay and difficulty incident to obtaining
specific written authorization to abandon the application
from the inventor and assignee, if any. Such delay fre-
quently results in inconvenience and sometimes in the loss of
material rights.
The text of the proposed amendment was published in the
Federal Register of March 31, 1966 (31 F.R. 5202). A
hearing was held on April 26, 1966, and all persons, who
desired to, were invited to attend and to submit their views,
objections, recommendations, or suggestions which were con-
sidered in connection with the adoption of the amendment.
The rule is being adopted as published with a further
amendment to the sentence proposed to be added to the rule.
The clause Except as provided in J 1.262 is added to the
sentence as previously published so that the sentence reads:
Except as provided in 1 1.262 an application may also be
expressly abandoned by filing a written declaration of aban-
donment signed by the attorney or agent of record.
The full text of the amended rule is as follows:
1 1.138 Express abandonment.
An application may be expressly abandoned by filing in the
Patent Office a written declaration of abandonment signed
by the applicant himself and the assignee of record, if any,
and identifying the application. Except as provided in
1 1.262 an application may also be expressly abandoned by
filing a written declaration of abandonment signed by the
attorney or agent of record.
(See. 1, 66 Stat. 793, 35 U.S.C. 6)
EDWARD J. BRENNER,
Commissioner o Patents.
Approved: May 10, 1966.
J. HERBERT HOLLOMON,
Assistant Secretary or Science and Technology.
[F.R. Doe. 66-5550; Filed, May 20, 1966; 8: 45 a.m.]
Published in S1 P.R. 7391, May 21, 1966
Dependent Claims
Although the notice published on October 5, 1965, in 819
O.G. 3, explained that for the purposes of the present fee
bill, Public Law 89-83, approved July 24, 1965, the Patent
Office will consider a proper dependent claim as being one
which incorporates by reference a single preceding claim,
whether independent or dependent, and includes all the limi-
tations of the claim so incorporated, there appears to be still
some uncertainty on this matter and it is therefore thought
to be desirable to elaborate it.
Since the initial determination, for fee purposes, as to
whether a claim is dependent must be made by persons other
than examiners, it is necessary, at that time, to accept as
dependent virtually every claim w~hich refers to another
claim, without determining whether there is actually a true
dependent relationship. Such acceptance does not, however,
preclude a subsequent holding by the examiner that a claim
is not a proper dependent claim.
An essential characteristic of a proper dependent claim is
that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which
it depends (35 U.S.C. 112) or in other words that it shall
not conceivably be infringed by anything which would not
also infringe the basic claim. Thus, for example, if claim 1
recites the combination of elements a, b, e and d, a claim
reciting the structure of claim 1 in which d was omitted or
replaced by e would not be a proper dependent claim, even
though it placed further limitations on the remaining ele-
ments or added still other elements.
The fact that a dependent claim which is otherwise proper
might require a separate search or be separately classified
from the claim on which it depends would not render it an
improper dependent claim, although it might result in a
requirement for restriction.
The fact that the independent and dependent claims are
in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the
New Applications Received During May 1966
Patents --------------------------------------7,779
Designs --------------------------------------418
Plant Patents ---------------------------------12
Reissues ---------------------------------------17
Total ------------------------------------ 8,226
Issue-July 5, 1966
Patents ---- 1,129-No. 3,258,779 to No. 3,259,907, incl.
Designs ------ 32-No. 205,177 to No. 205,208, incl.
Plant Pats... 9-No. 2,648 to No. 2,656, incl.
Reissues ----- 8-No. 26,053 to No. 26,060, icl.
Total .... 1,178](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.intprop/uspagaz0565&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)