This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:
—I have read with interest Dr. Rehfisch's letter relative to the Coffey-Humber patent (The Journal, March 7, p. 794). After Dr. Rehfisch had complimented the Patent Office onthe "masterly report on Coffey's preposterous claims, which were annihilated one by one by a patent examiner who dealt with them in a truly scientific fashion," he might have been sufficiently generous to give the examiner who wrote such a "masterly report" the credit for properly considering the application before he would grant the patent.An investigation shows that Dr. Rehfisch was entirely in error in his belief that there was such great speed that the case was resubmitted one day and granted the next without due deliberation on the part of the examiner. Patent Office Rule 13 permits an applicant or his attorney to interview an examiner after rejection and to go over the entire case orally as with
Robertson TE. "THE COFFEY-HUMBER PATENT". JAMA. 1931;96(18):1529. doi:10.1001/jama.1931.02720440077031
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: