Decisions of the director of patents

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title
Decisions of the director of patents
Language
English
Year
1952
Subject
Patent law.
Patents.
Rights
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
Fulltext
Decisions ol tbe Dlreetor ol :Patea.t• REl'iJBLIC OF THE PHILIPPfNES ' DEPARTMENT .OF CQM'iMERCE AND INDUSTRY . ; . IN THE PHILIPPINES PATENT·OFFICC:. Paients Decision No.· 2 Ser: 1952 EKPARJE A: i, !CASIANO A.· T. lcasiano; App.~l~an~ Adolfo A. Scheerer,: of Manila, for the Patent Appl. Ser. No. 2.3;° filed May 24, 1948 APPEAL FROM DECISION" OF .PRINCIPAL EXAMINER DECISION This is an appeal from the decision of one of the Principal Patent· Examiners rejecting the· application of ARISTEO TANTOCO lCASlAN0 :.for an' alleged invention, which the applicant has entitled, "Bamboo Board whid1 is Rigid, Solid, Light, and Durable as a Material for Building and Construction Purpose;, and which ~ Res:stant to Heat, Weather, Abrasion, and ' to Deteriorations ·caused by Fungus, Termites or other lhsects." -The application i's for a product in· vention, containintt three claims as fol· lows: "(l) A BAMBOO BOARD. rigid, to~g''· solid and durable, mi:Lde up of two lavers or 'plys of woven bamboo strips, Impregnated or co"ated with adhesive, and bonded together by application of pre£sure with or without, heat, depending on the type of adl\eslye used, to be use"l as a · building O•' construction materla! and for other uses: "C2) A .BAMBOO 0 BOARD whl.ch has the same properties and similarly mnnufaCtua·ed as the bamboo board def'· crlbed under claim No. 1 above, but more rigid. heavier and tough.er, being made up of three o rmore layers (:>lys) of woven bamboo :Jtrlps; and "(3) A BAMBOO BOARD which h1H1 ·essentially the same properties and Is slmllai'ly tnanursctund as tile bamboo bOB.rd~ descirlbed under claims Nos. 1 and 2 above, but which Is lighter and flexible, being maOe up of a single layer or ply of woven bamboo strips." . the making of these boards is described by the applicant in the specifications. as follows: · 660 "My boards com•!sts of bamboo strh)!i and an adhesive of synthetic origin, such as phenolic resins. urea resins, etc. The adhesive may also be of animal .origin, :;c~e==ta~:e ~~;~1:'.0::c:1::m::~~!:~:·:r:~ sins." rubber lat~, e'tc . ." o~ ~ coi-n.bliia.~11,;1:1 of any two or more of the above type~ of adheRlves; bUt If adhesive of animal , ·l~11ve:e~t;:;:· ::~g~:le~s us,d. th~ _pro_du~t "In preparing the board, strips of bamboo are tmpreg~S.ted ·or c~ated With synthetic resin adhesive, such as phenolic . or urea_ r~slns. The strlpS are the~ woven accOrdli:lg to the desired pattern and two 'layers (plys) of woven strips are pef.m8.rient1y b0nded tOgether by application of pressure by means of a press, or some devise which will. give $. slmlJar action, with.or wlt~oui heat depending on the type of synthetic resin adhesive used. If so desired, the. strips· may first be woven before th~ application of the adhesive. "For a more rigid and tougher board, three or more layus (plys) of adhes~ve­ treated woven bamboo strips are plybounded. For a lighter board with someflexlbllity, o~Jy oqe layer (ply) of woven strips · ls us·ed. To secure more a.rtlstlC effect, the ba~boo strips may be' stained with any desired color before ap:.. plying the adhesive and· berOre ~eav· Ing." The Principal Examiner rejected all these three product claims on the ground of lack of nOvelty and lack of invention. On the point of novelty, the Principal Examiner was of the opinion that the ~amboo prod-Jets described in the three daims were not ner.v in the sen~e of Sec. 9 of the pci.tent law, in that: (a) bamboo products become iough and durable and light because of impregnation with resin's, such as phenolic or urea. resins, were matters alre._dy within existing knowledge, some such prodi.tcts having been disclosed in United States Pat<nt No. 2,352, 740, granted to Shaut•on o> July 4, 1944; (b) boarding moterials con•;;isting of separate thin plys, become solid and rigid because of bonding toge~her with adhesives ( amon-g them, phenolic and urea re!ins) and pressure, were known .to have been manufactured in the past, the well-ki;,o~ .. plywood" being a partifular example of such type of boarding material. On the point of invention, the Principal £.Xii.miner was of the opinion tha! there could pdssibly be no inve~tion ( &;i THE LAWYERS JOURNAL tl)iS: Word ·is upd~toocf iQ. Pi!Lb}Dt la.w) in. a boai~ing m~~ial f~ioned in pr,actically the same. ~ay .an!i PQl!esseQ t:Ja· sical)y of the s~.e char~cteristi.a as "plywoo~" •. the· o;ily difference exis~ between the two boards b~ng that, while the one is madC. from bamboo i:;lys. ·th"? other is fashioned from wood plys. The Principal. Examiner believed .. -the, applicant's. boards to.be a.case of mere .W>stitution of ma\OJials . .(bamboo .fw woOd)' 'Which substitution, he said, can never. under the well settled principles of tho patent law, impart tn any device or product the dignity of an invention. Reference to the patent to Shannon. cited by the Principal E;.xam.inei-. th~ it to be for a metho4 of treating bamboo wih resin's for the purpose of impartiQg to -it certain characteristics. · Claim 2 of the said· patent, w_hieh may be considere~ .as reP!esentative of all the claims,. is herein~der quoted. . "2. Method or Impregnating b•Q?.k!>!> containing cells and membraneous cell walls with a synthetic resin o:f the group consisting of phenol!c aldehyde resln11 and urea aldehyde resins, whleb coniprIses soaking the bamboo In water until _the cells and cell wala are lmpregna.hd with water and thereafter, without sulSstantlal drying of the bamboo, soaking It In a watery solution comprising the synthetic resin untl.1 the cells and cell walls are Impregnated with the resin, heating the treated ba~boo In a. humid· atmosphere to decrease travel of. the resin to the surface of ·the bamboo. and to lnsolubillze the resin and deposit It within and around the cells and cell walls." Note Shannon's rriention of the u'e of synthetic u'sins, · such as phenolic and urea resins - the same resins the a-ppli~ cant ICASIANO employs in conn~tion with his. alleged inven~ion. Paragraph 3, pa111e 2 of the specifi • cations of the same Shannon patent deacribE!J the bamboo product resulting frOIC p;oce:.';ing the raw material with 11henolic and urea re!ins, in accordance vrith the m.e~hod outlined in Claim 2. · "By proceeding In the manner d"· crlbed herein It hos been round poHlble to control the characteristics of the llnal product. The treated bamboo Is some· what heavier than the untreated material but ls much stronger and, on' ttl..e basis of equal strengths,' a piece of bamboo treated In this manner Is lighter lri weight than untl·eated bamboo. The December 31, 1952 flnlll'hea product may be u11cd tor poles for pole vaulting, oars, sailboat masts. shart!I of golt cl.ulii:i' aD.d pi;ilo. malle~s. brlstle>1 for brushes, ele. Where the resin b~ baked hard after the wood~' base material 11:1 treated, the composite h.i.s g1·eut <llmem!lonal stability under any atmosJJherlc condition and Is resistant to abrasion; It Is thereto re useful fo:· propellei·s and other parts of aircraft, patte1·ns for ~astlng, phonograph needl~s. etc." Note that Shannon aS!erts that the resulting bamboo bamboo product has the followini characteristics not found in ·the uni>rocessed- product: strength, lightness, stability, resistance to abrasion. Excluding rigidity and soliaity-qua!:ties to be expected when a number of thin, 'swaying plys are firmly bonded together - these are essentially the same attrib~es (rigid, tough, solid, light and durable) which the applicant !CASIANO claims, both in hi~ ~pecifications and Claims, for hi$1 pheiiol-urea-resintreated bamboo board. We may reasonably assume that, like the applicant's prodllct, Shannon~s is also resistant" to heat, wa:ter, weather. fungus, termite!$, and other insects, sinCe such attributes in applicant's product rnsult from treatment with phenolic and u1ea resins. and Shannon's is similarly treated. From the foregoing, it should be evident that, in respect qf il's special at.tributes or charace'ristics - characteristic;i which would be absent, if the bamboo were not treated with phenolic and urett rt:sins - the type of bamboo produc".I claimed. by the applicant ICASIAN.O as_ new, is not in fact new in the acct·pted sen':ie of the patent law, since it is clearly anticipated by Shannon's earlier bamboo product possessing the same aaributes or characteristics. Reference to lfferaure on plywood, gluea, . adhesives, and resins shows t.he following"So ·far as we can trace, one of the earliest mentions Or the word "plywoocl' 1n any st:m<liu·d dlctlona1·y aPpeo.ris ln the Appendix oi the 1031 Edition of' Chambe1··1:1 Twentieth Century Di.ctiona• ry a1:1: •n., o. thin boa1·d made from tlwee very thin luye1·is u[ wood, the grain or the middle layer at l•lght angles to the g1·D.1n of the outer two, cemented together uncler 1wcsisure.' "Mr. Onion, in the edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary pre· viously mentioned, gives the origin of ihe word as being 'U.S. 1917 form of P~y (•substantive I: 'layer or thicknes5') wood.' 'A com1Jound wood mude or three (Hv<..', etc.) thin laye1·s glued or cemented tc> , .g_ether under 1n·essw-c. anll .arranged i-,., that the grul11 of one layc1· runs ut right December 31, 1952 angle3 to the grain of any adjacent layer.'" (Plywood111, their Development, Ma• nlifRture _ .and Applic tion by An<\fe-.r Dick \Yood ancl Thomas Grny Linn; Chemkal Publlshin~ ('ompuny, Inc., Brooklyn, N. Y., U.S.A. 1943, 1iage 9) "PLYWOOD: A product made up of layers of veneer bonded with glue, often bonded with synthetic resin. Alternate layel'a have r.i;ain at right anglts to increase strength and to reduce the tendency to 'shrink and split." (Handbook of Plastics by H. R. Simonds, A. 1. Weith, and M. H. Bigelow, 2nd Ed., D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Ge11eral Glossary, p. 1428) "The glue's and adhesives used in weodworking and plywood fall into six principaj groups, w;ith Beveral miPor t]•pea that will be mentioned briefly: animal veget8.ble casein soya bean blood albumin synthetic resins, pl~enollc and urea miscellaneous" "Resin -A raw mnterlal, made iJ)'nthctl, co.Uy, which Iii the basis for JJroducts called the plaiJtlcs. Certain resins can be used to adhe1•e pieces of wood. anJ these are called re"sln adhesives, !es,; correctly resin glues. These adheslv~3 are of relatlycly recent developmer.t and are much more durable than the older types of conventional glues. 11Phenollc resin adhesives are made from phenol and formaldehyde, harden oniy In the presence of heat, and hre tue most dur~ble. They a1·e available jn liquid, llOW<le1', and Him !orm. "Urea. resin adheslve1:1 are made fL·oru ureas and formaldehyde, ha1·den when heate1l and In the presnee of certain chemlcnl1:1 (catal)·sts or ha1•deners) this hardening can be rapid and !t~ moderate temperatures." <Modern Plv· wood by Thomas D. Pel'l'Y, Fourth Printing, 1945; Pitman Publishing Corporation, New Yo1·k and Chicago, pagtls 55 and 13). The foregoing technical informa!rion confirms the Principal Examiner's finding that, except for the basic mater!.-.al used in each case (wood, bamboo), there is ab'JO)utely no difference between plywood and the applicant's bambo? board, either in the process of manufacturing or in the resulting product. Eacl. consists of a numbe"r of relatively thin layers, or plys, bonded together into a solid, rigid board, tough and durable, by application, firstly, of adhe·sives (among them phenoli~ and urea resins) and, secondly, of pressure. Upon these facts, it appears that th~ Principal Examiner's decision, -ejecting ~II the three Claims in que'.stion was -no.~ m error. The bamboo board of the type chc:THE LAWYERS JOURNAL Di;ci:sion::; Of The Director OF Patent• racterized in Claim 3 (single-ply) is undoubtedly a new commercial product, but· it tertaioly is not a n~ or novel p1cduct in the sense of the patent law. The ply itfelf (locally known as )a~ale) is old. What applicant claims as patentably n~w is the cld .sawale become rigid. le.ugh, durable· and light through impregnation with phenolic or urea resins and through the applicatjon of heat and pressure. Such a type of sawale cannot be a patentably new product within the purview cf SeC'. 9 of the statute, because, a:i hereinabove indicated, the Shannon patent, granted four year's before ·the herein applicant filed his patent application, had disclosed that bamboo--that i::, bamboo in the raw or as maoufac. tured into any specific article of commerce - results in a stable (rigid). tt1ong (tough), resistant-to-abrasion (duri.lbi'e), and relaivelv light product, when in.pregnated with phenolic or urea resins and heateQ. Section 9 says that an alleged invention shall not be cotrsid~r­ ed new, if it has been described in IJ f;!rinted publication in the Phil~pvines or ebewhere. Shannon's natent, describinlJ the qualities of bamboo products treated v•ith his precess (which is sub£tantially :;im.ilar to the i::rocess disclO".ied by the Buplicant herein) is a printed public'ltion, since United States patents, like Philippines patents, are. afer issue, print;ed and ccpie'.; sold to· the public. Applican't alle5':ed invention, as characterized ii' Claim 3, is thus not new 1 having been described in the earlier Shannon ·patent. For the same reatons, while the bamboo boards characterized in Claims I and 2 (two or mere p}ys bonded together, each ply being of the Claim 3 type) are new comm'ercially, they cannot be new in the patent-law sense. Except for the 'substitution of bamboo olys for wood plys, the~e bamboo boards- are in aH respects the same as plyWood, both in the method of manufacture and in the resoling product. As shown in the cited Plywoods, their Development, M anufaciure and Application (1943), plywood and the method of its manufac· ture have been described in printed pubiicaticps as far back as the year 1931. They are described in the Handbook of Plasti~ (first oublished July, 1943, <;econd ed., Jan., 1949), and mentioned m Modem Plywood (194S). There certainly can be no invention involved in the lwo types of bambot> board in question. Thev constitute no more than an exten'.>ion of Shannon's original lhought and of the original conception of commercial plywood. For tliat extemion the skill of the mechanic was sufficient; the creative geniu'l of the inventor was not necessary. In Smith v. Nichols,· 112 L. ed. 566, the -Supreme Court of the United Staks said: · 661 Ceci1ions of the Director of Patenb "x x x a mere carrying forward or a new or more extended application of the original thought, a change only in !orm, proportion or degree, the substitution of e(1ulvalents doing substantially tho earn~ thing In the same way by substantially the same means with better results, le not such Invention as will sustain a patent." Speaking of the U. S. patent law, which is 'similar to outs in respect of th~ requisites for patenr8.bility, the same tribunal said in Cuno Engineering Corporation tJ. Autom.-:itic Devices Corporatiori, 86 L. ed. 55, "Under the statute, the device mu~t not only be new and useful, but it mus[ be an Invention an{1 diseove1·)·· That Is to say. the new device, however use(td it may be, mu~t reveal the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the calling. J( it fall~. It has not established Its right to a private grant on t!'.e public domain." It is urged by the applicant that his two types of bamboo board should be regarded )ioth as novel and inventive in that (a) prior to applicant's alleged invention thereof, no one in the Philip· pint:!s had ever thought of processing sawak and of bonding to~ether several sheets of sawale so processed into a solid, thick, upright board, in the manner disclosed in his 'specifications; and (b) in that by his alleged invention he· has s..ibstantially advanced the sawale-making industry, making sawale, converted into the form'J he has conceived, useful for multifarious purposes, some of which purpoSe were impracticable before -"for walls. partitions,· panels, ceilings, shingles for roofs, door, windows, tiles, floorings. etc. and also for the manufacture of screens, table-top's, boxes, decorative 11-rtides, veneers, etc." (Specifications, p. 1, lines 6-10). Conceding all these, the three Claims i!l question are still not allowable, for, after everything ha's been said in favor of the applicant's P.riority and of the many new uses of his bamboo .boards, said boards still lack the one quality needed for their patentability - invention in themselves. The patentabiliy of a product claim, it has been said, mtr.;t be found in the product itself, and nm solely upon alleg~d new functions or um thereof. In re Lewis 108 F(2d) 248 (1939); and in claims for structure, patentability, it has been declared, must be> found in the 'Structure, not in the results obtained therefrom. In re Luck, 108 F(2d) 263 (1940). In Buono v. Yankee Maid, 77 F(2d) 274 (1935), the famous Judge Learned Hand said n•ust be exclusively in the conception of t:he product; that, while that imposes o that a product Claim must stand upon its own invention; that the invention, severe standard, it is not severer than it 662 should be if the mcnopoly is to extend, as it does in such cases, to the product however made; for unless con~eption alone is the test and if the inventor m.ay eke out hi'J right by recourse to the ingenuity involved in any process or ma chine, he gains an unfair advantage, for the claims cover the products produced by processes and machines to which, by hypothesis, he has contributed nothinsc. The"Je considerations compel an affomance of the decision apoealed from, rejecting all three claims of applicant's AopJ. Serial No. 23. Said decision i~. therefore, affirmed. · AFFIRMED. This decision is final for the i;.urposes of Chapter XIII of the patent law lel"lting to aooeals from the Director of Paenrs to the Supreme Court. Manila, Philippines, June 30, 1952. <SGD.) CELEDONJO AGRAVA Director of Patents SOME INTERESTING LEGAL FACTS SAID OF THE U. s. PATENT OFFICES, WHICH APPLY TO THE PHILIPPINES PATENT OFFICE The Judicial Nature of the Functions of the Patent Of/ice. The U. S. Supreme Court in Butterworth, Commissioner of Pa'tents v. th.! U.S. 28 L. ed. 656, "The general 9bject of that system !"I to execute the Intention of that clnmn of the Constitution, al'ticle I., section VIII., which confers upon Cong1·ess the powe1• 'To promote the progress of sci en~~ and useful arts. b~· securing for limited times, to authors and lnv~tors, the e:ic elusive 1·ight to theh· respective writings and discove1·ies." The leglslntion bas~d on this provision rega1·ds the right oi Pl·operty In the inventor as the medium of the public advantage derived fro1l' his Invention; so that in every grant l f the limltec1 mono1>0J~· two Interests are invoh·ed, that of the public, who are tho grantors. and that of the patentee. Ther" are thus two parties to eve1 ·y application for a patent and mo1·e, when, :H> in case of interfering claims or patents, othei· private Interests compete fo1· preference. The questions of fact arising i 1 this field find tllelr ;.nswers In E>\'Cl'Y department or J>h~·sical science. in eve ... , brnneh of meclmnlcal urt; the quesllo;~s of law, necessary to be ?.J>1>lied in the settlemE>nt of this class of public an;l p1•lvate rights, have founclcd a s1ieclal branch of technical ju1·is1wudence. The investigation of e\·ery claim J>l'esentecl involves the adjudication of disputed questions of fact, u11on :1>clcntiric 01· legal Pl'inciples, and Is, tht>retore, essentially judicial in its clmrncter and requires th.'l Intelligent judgment of a trained llodv scle?ce and art, h!a1·ned in the hlsto!"~· of Invention, an<l procc('cli11.;- by !i:x:~d rules to systematic conC'luslons:• THE LAWYERS JOURNAL The U.S. Coun of Customs and Pat.?nt Appeals in California Packing Cor#J. v. Sun-Maid Raisin Crowers, relative to the. trademark Sun-Maid, 64 F(2d) 3iO, "'In the c:u•e of In re Barratt's Appe"'.1.1, H A1111. D. c. :!ii5. it WU :stated, with 1·cs11cct to proceedings In the Patent Office. that thcY are so neaa·Jy akin to judicial 11rocecdings as to I.le most appro111·iatt•ly designated as llUasi-judicla.I'. Sec'. ahm. American Ft·uit Growers, Inc. '" John B1·aadland, Ltd., 'ilii F. (2d) 443, 18 C. C. P. A. 790." The Di'strict Court (Dist. of Columbia) in Carter Carburetor Corpora"fion v. Commissioner of Pattnts, 73 U. S. P. 0. 278, (1947): "(f) 8. The exercise of his ju1·lsdlctlon hy the P1·1mary Examlne1• upon any re· (erence to him bY the Examiner of Interfe1•ence of a motion to shf[t the bur(}e~ of p1·oof calls into action the powerB and functions exercised by a judge lo th-i admission, rejection and evaluation ot evidence and particularly so in an interference, such as No. 82, 262, wherein n. party thereto claimed to be entitled to the benefit of the filing de.te of an ear· lier joint application filed not by him· self alone but by himself and another. Such jurisdiction is truly judicial. "11. Hunt's. petition to 'review and reverse the ruling of the Examiners of Interferences dismissin .... Hunt's motion to shift the burden of prpof' was not ad· c!rnsed to the Commjssioner in view of' hii:i supervisorv authority. The action taken thereon by the Commis'sioner may not be upheld on such hypothesis. His order of July 19. 1946 was not an exercise of supervisory power but was a review of the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, and in disregard and viofo.tion of Rules of Practice in the Umted States Patent Office Nos. 97, 101, 116, 122 and 124 which have the force and effect of a statute, x x x x A petition may not be entertained by the Commiss1on~r when it seeks to obtain inclirectl:l·· a review of an examiner's judicial or quasi judicial decision from which no direct appeal lies by merdy misnaming the action and calling it a petition. Goss ·1. Scott, 1901 C. D. 80; Manny v. Easley v. Greenwood, Jr., 1889 C. D. 179, 181; Waite v. Macy, 246 U.S. 606, 608. .. ( 6) 12. The executive supervisicn and direction which the head of a department may exercise over his subo:dinate in matters administrative and executive do not extend to matters in which the subordinate 1s directed by statute or rule having the force of statute to a,ct l~:~~a~~·H~~. ~liuL.jS~iSi0_1.1.y. Butter· The Rule.s of Pradice of the Patent Office The same district Court in the &!Ulle cue: Decembel' 31, 1952 P•tent Rule. and Regulationa "(3.) 6. The Rulea of the Patent cations and decisions he is required to Patent Office, or who shall, with Ji. Office have the force of a statute antl make. and the modes provided by law. tent to defraud in any manner, deceive. bind' th Commissioner according to which, exclusively. they rniilead, or threaten any applicant nr =d :i1 of&ci:f. :r:°'he P~tent Office as may be reviewed." prospective applicant or other person upon applicants for patents and parties having immediate or prmpective busito interferences. Westinghouse Traction PRACTICE BEFORE THE PHILIPPINES ness before the office, by word, circular, Brake Co. v. Christensen, 243 F. 9()1, PATENT OFFICE IE.tter. or by advertieing. The reasons 905 (C. C. A. 3}; Andenon v. Walc;h, BY ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS for any such '.m!pension or exclusion Wfd ~of.d2~~s~~·u;P'Q c;,.3~·~~~ [Republic Act No. 637] ::t~!'" t~o;ec~:db. ~~':i":.; 347): /n re Korton, 58 F. 2d 682 (13 "Section 7. x ·x x x x x. the petition of the person 10 refused liSPQ 345) · Interference Law and '"The Director may pmcribe rules llnd m:ognition or So suspended or excludtid Practice, bv luvise and Caesar. Vol. I. regulations governin• the recognition of by the Supreme Court under such coop. 25, slO; Defendant's answer to Pa- attorneys, agents, or other persons repre- ditions and upon such proceedings as i's pa.,.. 8 of Amended C~plaint." senting applic.ants or other parties be- the said Court may by its rules deter/urisdiclion of the DePGJ:tmt;nt Head fore his office in patent and trademarks mine. The ·u. s. Supreme Court in the same cases, and may require such oersons. :it- "It shall be unlawful for any ~n case cited above: 'torneys or agents: before being recogniz- who has net been duly recognized to ed at representatives of applicants or practice beore the Patent Office t~ '"x x x x The condusion cannot b~ other per'5ons, that thev shall show that hold. himsdf out or knowingly permit resisted that, to whatever else supervisi.c;>n they are of good moral character and himself to be held out as a patent Qr and direction on the pan of the head of ill good repute, are pGSlessed of the ae- trademark solicitor, patent or trademark the department may extend, in respect cessary qualifications to enable them to agent, or patent ·or tradema:rk attornev. to matters purely administrative and render to applicftnts or other persons va~ or otherwise in any manner hold himself :E:!"~~= :r ~h~ c::issi'o!:'ie~ luable service. and are likewise compe- out, either directlv or indirectly, as autent to advi'.se and assist applicants 'J1' dte'n°'tize 01 d ttroademreprear'kentm' •thPP 01!ircabnu~.·nfessor P"<" Patent& in thoiie c~ in which, by law, o1her persons in the presentation or pro- .. , behe ii appointed to exerclae his discretfon secution of their applications or other fcre the Patent Office, and it shall be judicially. It is not consistent with the business before the Office. And the bi- unlawful for any person who has, und:r idea of judicial action that it should be rector of Patents may, after notice and the authority of thi's section, been c{is· subject to the direction of a superior, in opportunity for a hearing, suspend or barred or excluded from practice befD"'e the sense in which that authoritv is con- exclude, either «enerallv or in any par· the Patent Office, and has not been re~ ferred upon the head of an exeCutive de- ti"-ular case, from. further practice bef9~~ ir.stated. to hold himself out in any partment in reference to his subordinates. bs office any penons, attorney, or agent manner whatever as entitled to represent Such a subjection takes froin it the qual- shown to be incompetent or disreput- or assist persOns in the tran'taetion of ity of a Judicial' act. That it was in- able, or guilty of grO'JS misconduct, ot businea before the Patent Office; and tended that. the Commiuioner of Pa- gross discourtesy or disrespect towards i:'DY offen~ against the foregoing protents, in i!SUirta or withholding patents, any Patent Office cfficial or ex&mine; vision shall be a misdemeanor and b-. in re-iuue'1, interferences and extensions. while the latter is in the discharge of his punished by a fine of not lea than one should exercise quasi judicial functions is cfficial duty, or who refuses to comp.ly hundred pesos and· not exceeding one -•~pparen~-'-t_lrorn~-the~_•_at_u_re~of_th'-e_e_xa_m_i_-~wlth~~th_e~ru_l~_,_a_n_d_~-=.lu_l_at_ion~•-•_f_t_h•~~t~_.ous_._a._nd~n_"5ol.-'--"~~~~~~~ Demi.on on Montano Ball Plea Peopk of the Philippines, plaintiff, o•. /u.tfnfano S. M onlano, d. al., acc~sed. Crim. Cme No. 11396, December 2, 1952, Court of FiraJ Instance of Cavitt. The detennlnatlon of the IJlen £01· brill by, Senator Montano Is one of the spectu.cullC' lepl stell8 taken by ou1· courts or justlc.,.. Due to the hlc-h position being helcl by thP. defendant and tile Important tine11llons Involved therein, we ntt publlshlng this dechdon for the benefit or the remle1·s.-The Edihr•. ORDER 1-tNTRODUCTORY OCAMPO, J.: Thia cnae Is befo1·e this Court u11on the appllco.tlon [or bt111 of defendant Juatlnlnno S. Montano, who stands chal'J:ed heoreln to· gether with aeveral ot11e1·s with the complex crime of kldnnpplng with multiple murdrrs and frustrated murders, con1mltted In the manner specified. In the 0 lnformutlon of the Special Prosecutor dated September . .29, 1911.2. No ball was 1·ecommended, the charge December 81, 1952 befng Cor a cnpltal orrense, (Sec. 5, Rule 110). The infol'matlon of the SpecL'\I Prosecutcr was directly lodged with this Court. Aftr.-r conducllni:- a p1•ellmlna1-y Investigation, tMs Court dl~poscd that a wm·1·ant be lsn·ed for the m·rest of Justiniano S. Montano and 11ome or his co-accused against whom the existence of a "probable cause·• hnd been shown. (Sec. 4, Rule 101). Hence, th<' Instant IJetltion for ball which was opJlnaed by the Gove1·nment. In the determination or th(' 1·lght of the accused to be admitted to IJnll, 1n·ecedents d1•cree thnt It is now mandato1•y to conduct a separate p1·0C'0edlng (Gerar<lo v, Judge of First InstuncC of Ilocos Norte, G. R. No. L-3451, May 29, 19i0), which would ln111el'.!'tlvely lnvoh•e lhe pi·esentll.tlon of evidence In l\ntlci).ia.tlon of the regul11r trlnl, neve1·theJNS this Court cleclded to g1·ant the request of counsels fo1· the petitioners Cor a si.rmrate hearing. This hearing wi.s summa!',r In nature. In the Interest <If J1:11.Uce-, J1owe\er, both pnrUes were afforded~ a wide THE LAWYERS JOURNAL lc.tltude In the presentation of their reapeclh·-e evidence, both In chief and In rebutta1. 'l:he hearlq lasted during the month of October, In the cou1·se of which an Amendvd I~fo1•matlon was flled by the Special Pl'OSE'<"Utors on the 3rd or the snm-e month. At the outset, the C'ourt lald down Ila c•ear-cui norm of conduct - that the hearIr.: ahnll be conducted heedless or the high position of the person Involved, and that eech judicial actuation and ever)· ruling to 1'&. laid down shall be unmlndtul of and Ir passive to the rnnk and eminence which th. petitioner bolds In Congreas - In order to stress and vouch to the public at lfu ge who have been following these proceedings the supremac)· of the law and the prlnclple of equal Justice before the law. II-FACTS OF THE CASE (a) Evidence for th, proaecution. Tbe concrete evidence for the prosecution discloses that at about five o"elock In the afternoon of .Auguat 31, 191! (t . .1.n, 71) H663