The Supreme Court has broad supervisory power over the judgments of the lower federal courts. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36, 40. However, as a necessary consequence of its decision in Baldwin Co. v. Howard Co., 256 U. S. 35, the Supreme Court has strictly adhered to a hands-off policy with respect to the judgments of this court relative to patentability. Although there is none to call our power to account, the court should not ignore or reject the vital importance of the cited rule. MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS DISMISSED SEPTEMBER 29, 19501 Dwinell-Wright Co. v. Emery & Kavanagh Co., etc. (No. 5814).-Trade-mark for fresh grapes, fresh lettuce. ОСТОВЕВ 31, 1950 In re Haensel (No. 5798).—Improvement in aromatization process. In re Wanner (No. 5818).-Improvement in devices for electro-mechanical differential power transmission with speed changing gear. NOVEMBER 13, 1950 Traford Fabrics, Inc. v. Goodman et al. (No. 5820).—Trade-mark for fabrics of rayon, nylon, etc. MARCH 7, 1951 National Cranberry Ass'n. v. California Consumers Corp. (No. 5836).—Trademark for fresh frozen vegetables. JUNE 26, 1951 J. L. Ferguson Co. v. New Jersey Machine Corp. (No. 5856).—Trade-mark for printing machines for applying code indications to labels. 1 Released November 6, 1950. 1213 INDEX-DIGEST, VOLUME 38 ABANDONED EXPERIMENT, see also 134, 135. 1. Device was not abandoned experiment, although 13 months passed ABANDONMENT. 2. One who files application and makes necessary and regular oath 3. Invention disclosed, but not claimed, in applicant's prior patents ACQUISITION OF MARKS, see 226–230. AFFIDAVITS, see also 30, 45, 104, 223, 224. 4. Sole applicant failed to make showing necessary to establish that 5. Under some circumstances difficulties may arise in obtaining affi- 6. Affidavits to show that specification's disclosure is sufficient need 7. Disclosure is insufficient although knowledge of teachings of prior AGGREGATION OR COMBINATION, see 153-157. APPEALS TO COURT, see also 106-112, 231–236. 8. Heretofore, court has held that if true generic claims were found 1215 APPEALS TO COURT-Continued In general-Continued and should be applied to all app'ications not finally determined on date 9. Rejection of Markush claims on ground that true generic claims- 10. It is not good form for reasons of appeal to begin with "The 11. After Board affirmed decision rejecting claims, but before appeal Briefs. 12. Reason of appeal not discussed in brief is assumed to have been 13. Court permits appellant in interference appeal to file reply to 14. Applicants' brief did not discuss ground of rejection as to specifie 15. Board awarded priority to senior party on ground that junior Issues to be determined-Ex parte cases. 16. Examiner's statement as to disclosure of original specification must 17. Although Board's decision criticized form of claims and although 18. Reason of appeal not discussed in brief is assumed to have been 19. Claims rejected as not readable on elected species are not before 20. Claims rejected as being directed to nonenumerated species are |