It is insisted by the appellant that he made payment of the amounts within the time and at a place designated by the law (sections 4885, 4934, and 4935, Revised Statutes;) that there is no provision of the statute or of the Rules of Practice declaring a forfeiture of a patent for failure to file with the Commissioner within any specified period, proof of the payment of the final fee where the same is paid at one of the places designated by the law other than the Patent Office; that it has been the practice to receive such certificates as were refused in this instance, even though presented long after the expiration of the statutory period of six months, and that in view of these facts a forfeiture ought not to be declared in these cases. The Commissioner, in his report of March 2, 1891, virtually admits that the practice has been to receive certificates presented after the expiration of six months after notice of allowance, and says: When, however, the presentation of the certificates involved in this controversy directed attention to the fact that the petitioner had apparently adopted the policy or course of withholding certificates for an unreasonable period, it was deemed advisable to consider the question carefully, and such consideration resulted in the action of which complaint is made. The statute makes no provision for bringing to the Commissioner of Patents notice of a payment made to any officer other than himself, mentioned in section 4935, Revised Statutes. Notice of such payment must be brought to the knowledge of the Commissioner before any further steps looking to the issuance of the patent can be taken. The privilege of making payment to au authorized officer at his own home is a great convenience to the applicant, and he ought not to complain if required to do that which is necessary to the proper execution of the patent laws-i. e., to promptly give to the Commissioner notice of such payment by the presentation of his duplicate receipt or certificate of deposit. The practice of receiving such evidences of payment after the expiration of the time prescribed by the statute for the issuance of patents having obtained in the Patent Office and having evidently become the recognized practice, the adoption of a different practice without preliminary notice of any kind is calculated to work a hardship and possibly injustice, and such course should not therefore be followed. For this reason, the appeal now under consideration should, in my opinion, be sustained and the Commissioner directed to receive the evidences of payment presented by Wiegand, and act upon them as has been the practice of his Office. It seems that in one of these cases, the original certificate on file in the Treasury Department, there is nothing to show upon what application the payment evidenced thereby was to be made. The Commissioner is evidently in error in saying in his report that this defect is in the Wiegand certificate. The number of the application set out in the duplicate filed shows it to relate to the Bassler certificate, and the Com missioner's decision speaks of this defect being the Bassler certificate. Where the responsibility for this defect lies I cannot say, but it is one that may, it seems to me, be easily cured by affidavit of the applicant, and if it be deemed necessary, the applicant should be allowed to submit such proof. The rule proposed to be adopted by the Commissioner of Patents, requiring the prompt presentation of the evidences of payment in such cases seems necessary to the due and proper execution of the patent laws, but in view of the very different practice that has been allowed to obtain the public should have due notice of the adoption and enforcement of the new rule of practice. The papers submitted to me are herewith returned. Very respectfully, GEO. H. SHIELDS, Assistant Attorney-General. The Hon. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS IN PATENT CASES, 1891. [Supreme Court of the United States.] THE NEW YORK BELTING AND PACKING COMPANY v. THE NEW JERSEY CAR SPRING AND RUBBER COMPANY. Decided December 22, 1890. 54 O. G., 135. 1. WOFFENDen-Design FOR RUBBER MATS. The first claim of Letters Patent No. 11,208 granted George Woffenden, May 27, 1879, for a design for a rubber mat, declared invalid as being too broad in view of old and well-known instances of producing contrasts and variatious in light and shade or stereoscopic effects by depressions or elevations in the surface of materials. 2. SAME. Whether the peculiar effect-"a sort of kaleidoscope effect"-produced by the particular design in question impressed upon the substance of india-rubber would constitute a quality of excellence which would give to the design a specific character and value and distinguish it from other similar designs that have not such an effect, quære. 3. SAME-DEMURRER TO BILL. With reference to claims 2 and 3, Held that as they might fairly be regarded as confining the patentee to the specific design shown and described in the patent, the demurrer to the bill should have been overruled. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Mr. B. F. Lee and Mr. W. H. L. Lee for the appellant. Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit in equity brought upon a patent for a design by the New York Belting and Packing Company, assignee of George Woffenden, against the New Jersey Car Spring and Rubber Company. The bill was dismissed upon demurrer, and the case is here on appeal from that decree. The ground for dismissing the bill, as stated by the circuit judge in his opinion, was that the subject-matter of the patent was not patentable, (30 Fed. Rep., 785,) and this is the question which has been discussed on the appeal. The invention claimed in the patent is a new and original design for rubber mats, of which the subjoined plate is a diagram. Referring to the diagram, the specification describes the invention as follows: In accordance with this design the mat gives under the light different effects, according to the relative position of the person looking at it. If the person changes his position continuously the effects are kaleidoscopic in character. In some cases moiré effects, like those of moiré or watered silk, but generally mosaic effects, are produced. Stereoscopic effects also, or the appearance of a solid body or geometric figure, may at times be given to the mat, and under proper conditions an appearance of a depression may be presented. The design consists in parallel lines of corrugations, depressions, or ridges, arranged to produce the effects as above indicated. The drawing represents a mat embodying this design. A is the mat, which is, as represented, square, although it might be oblong or other desired shape. It is divided into a number of sections, a b c d, the corrugations or depressions and ridges in those represented by the same letter being parallel. Thus in the center and outer border formed by the sections a b the corrugations extend around the mat parallel with its outer edge and with each other. At the points where each depression crosses the diagonals drawn from corner to corner of the mat through the center it makes a right angle with its previous path. In the intermediate borders the corrugations in the sections c are arranged at an angle with those in sections d, and in both they form an angle with the corrugations in |