Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/185

TOOHEY V. HàRDINfl. ���1T7 ���a caveat for a plaiting device on May 2, 1876, cannot be considered, as there is nothing to show what the device was. �The testimony of Charles B. Mann is not admissible for the reason that he is not an expert in the matter conceming which he gives an opinion. Objection is made to the admis- sibility of certiûed copies of certain papers from the files of the patent-office relating to the complainant's patent, upon the ground that these documents do not profess to be, and are not, a perfect or complete record of the matters to which they refer. �These certified copies purport to be : First, a copy of com- plainant's application, specifications and claim as first filed in the patent-office; second, a copy of a letter to her from the patent-office notifying her that her application was found to interfere with respondent's application, and that the subject- matter of the interference was "a plaiting board made in detachable sections, to permit of the plaiting machine being adjusted at different widths;" third, a copy of a paper by which she waived an appeal from the decision of the examiner of interferences; fourth, a 'copy of a communication dated June 9, 1877, addressed by her to the commissioner of pat- ents, directing him to amend her claim by omitting the claim for the board adjustable for different widths, and leaving only the claim as we find it in the patent granted to her. �I think these papers are properly before the court. They do not profess to be anything in the nature of a record, but simply perfect transcripts of certain documents now on file in the patent-office. They tend to show that the com- plainant did originally, in her application, claim as her inven- tion a removable strip for widening the plaiting board; that upon being notified that, in the opinion of the examiner of interferences, the claim made by her interfered with respond- ent's application, she waived an appeal and struck out that claim from her application. �These were facts pertinent to the issue, and which the respondent was entitled to prove by the best evidence he could procure. If they are not ail the facts in connection �v.l,no.3— 12 ��� �