The most natural procedure, at first thought, would be to classify on the totality of the showing, in which case the application for the nail-machine, supposed above, would be assigned to nail-making. But imagine the invention claimed by an applicant to be the counter. Then the examiner in charge of nail-making would have to search the class of registers with which he is not familiar. Suppose applicant No. 2 files an application for the same counter which he illustrates and describes in connection with a bottle-filling machine, and that, classifying on the totality of the showing, this goes to the division that has the class of packaging liquids. Now both the examiners in charge of bottle-filling and nail-making, knowing that counters are classified in registers, search the class of registers and also the pending applications in registers. After these examiners have made their searches, suppose applicant No. 3 files an application for the same counter, which he says may be used for counting small articles produced by automatic machines. Perhaps he shows the counter attached to a piece of conventional mechanism representing any manufacturing machine, mentioning, say, a cigarette or pill or cartridge-making machine. It has not occurred to either the the examiner of nail-making or the examiner of bottle-filling that the other might have any such application; nor does it occur to the examiner in charge of registers to search nail-making or bottle-filling. As the specification of the counter application mentions cigarette, pill, and cartridge-making machines to which the counter may be attached, the examiner in charge of registers may search those classes. Suppose that the counter proves to be new, and each of the three examiners allows a patent. Here now are three patents for the same thing. Of course, after allowance, the counter and all other disclosed inventions that give any suggestion of novelty are cross-referenced; but the primary purpose of a patent office classification (to aid in determining patentability) has failed in this instance.
In the imagined situation respecting pending applications, without doubt diagnosis and classification upon the invention claimed is necessary to effect the purpose of the office classification. Cross-referencing after issue can not undo that which has been done.
