DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOR THE YEAR 1918. EX PARTE BOWEN. Decided January 11, 1918. 247 O. G., 245. 1. NAME OF APPLICANT-FULL NAME. Where the applicant's first name as signed to the papers is known as a Christian name, an affidavit that the name as given is his full name should not be required even though it is also an abbreviation. 2. SAME "FRED" FULL CHRISTIAN NAME-NO AFFIDAVIT NECESSARY. As " Fred" is a Christian name, the decision in ex parte Smith and Kimble (C. D., 1901, 231; 97 O. G., 2533) is overruled in so far as it held that an affidavit should be required when the papers are signed "Fred.” ON PETITION. ELECTRIC TIME-SWITCH. Messrs. Chandlee & Chandlee for the applicant. WHITEHEAD, First Assistant Commissioner: This is a petition for the withdrawal of the requirement that applicant file an affidavit that his full first name is " Fred," as it appears in the application. Rule 40 provides that full first names must be given. Order No. 600 directs that if the full first name does not appear applicant should be required to supply the omission or file an affidavit that his full name was as given. The requirement should be made where the name as signed is obviously an abbreviation or is so seldom used otherwise that the presumption is that it is an abbreviation (see ex parte Gentry, C. D., 1888, 115; 44 O. G., 822); but where the first name as it appears is known as a Christian name the requirement should not be made even though it is also an abbreviation. (See ex parte Moehn, C. D., 1903, 322; 106 O. G., 995; ex parte Faulkner, C. D., 1907, 136; 128 O. G., 886.) It is well known that "Fred" is a Christian name and presumably is applicant's full name. The requirement should therefore be withdrawn. The decision in ex parte Smith and Kimble (C. D., 1901, 231; 97 O. G., 2533) is overruled in so far as it held that an affidavit should be required when the papers are signed "Fred." The petition is granted. CREVELING V. JEPSON. Decided March 5, 1915. 247 O. G., 745. INTERFERENCE-RIGHT TO MAKE CLAIMS. Record reviewed and Held that the count of this interference and the ⚫claims proposed under Rule 109 cannot be predicated upon an earlier application of C relied upon to carry his date of invention back of a reference cited against C's application involved in this interference. APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief. ELECTRIC REGULATION. Mr. Charles McC. Chapman and Messrs. Sturtevant, & Mason for Creveling. Messrs. Kenyon & Kenyon for Jepson. EWING, Commissioner: This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief denying a motion made by Creveling under Rule 109 to admit the following claims: 8. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon said second mentioned end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the first mentioned end of the pile. 9. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile, and a long arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon said second mentioned end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the first mentioned end of the pile and an electro-magnet mechanically connected to each of said long arms for operating the same. 10. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever pivoted adjacent one end of said pile and having the shorter arm operating upon said end of the pile and its longer arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever pivoted adjacent said second end of the pile and having its shorter arm operating upon said second end of the pile and its longer arm extending toward said first mentioned end of the pile substantially parallel with the long arm of said first mentioned lever. 11. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, and electro-magnets for controlling the operation of said levers. 12. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, each lever having a short arm mechanically connected to the pile and a long arm, said long arms extending substantially parallel to one another, and means for operating said lever. An appeal is also taken from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief granting a motion made by Jepson to dissolve the interference. The single count is as follows: In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever operating upon one end of said pile and extending toward the other end of the pile, and a second lever operating on the second mentioned end of said pile and extending toward the frst mentioned end of said pile. The claims involved in the motion to amend are numbered 8 to 12, inclusive, and are claims 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 of the application of Jepson. The count of the interference was first presented as claim 4 of the Jepson application. These counts were all suggested to Creveling, with the proviso that he overcome a patent to Sherbondy, No. 989,305. In order to overcome this patent, Creveling filed an affidavit calling attention to two prior applications and setting forth that each of these applications disclosed the subject-matter of each of the claims. Upon this showing the Examiner declared the interference with claim 4 of Jepson as the single issue and refused to include claims 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17. Creveling then brought a motion under Rule 109 to have these claims included as counts of the issue, urging that the subject-matter thereof was disclosed in his prior applications. Jepson also brought a motion to dissolve, alleging, among other things, that the subjectmatter of the count was not disclosed in the prior applications of Creveling, and it was therefore anticipated by the patent to Sherbondy. The Law Examiner denied the motion to amend and granted the motion to dissolve on the ground that the structure called for in the above claims was not disclosed in the prior applications of Creveling. The Examiners-in-Chief affirmed the decision of the Law Examiner, and from their decision this appeal was taken. The structure in the earlier application of Creveling, upon which it is alleged that the claims under consideration read, is designated by the numerals 5 to 18, inclusive. The lever is pivoted at its lower end and by reason of the spring 5 compresses the carbon pile 3. At the lower end of the lever 7 is an arm 8, placed at right angles to 7 and carrying an upright arm 11. Connected to the outer end of the arm 8 by means of the pivot 10 is a lever 9 11, which is moved to its operative position by the spring 13. The carbon pile 12 is placed between the arms 11 11 and is compressed by the spring 13. The springs 13 and 5 thus produce the maximum pressure to which the carbon piles 12 and 3 are respectively subjected. In order to reduce this pressure, the lever 9 is secured by means of the rod 15 to the core 17 of the solenoid 18. When the core 17 is drawn inward, the spring 13 is compresed until the step 16 strikes 8, at which time the pressure exerted by 11 on the carbon pile 12 is reduced to a minimum. The elements 9 and 8 then become a rigid arm, and further inward motion of 17 operates to extend the spring 5 and reduce the pressure on the carbon pile 3 without producing any further effect on the carbon pile 12. Claim 8 calls for a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the other end of the pile, which may be answered by the element 9 11 and operated by the spring 13. This claim further calls for a second twoarmed lever having a short arm operating upon the other end of the pile and having a long arm extending toward the first-mentioned end of the pile. This second lever is not disclosed in this application, as the elements 7, 8, 11 do not act on the carbon pile 12 as a lever, but merely act as a stop, against which the pile is forced by the lever 9. So far as this claim is concerned 8 is a fixed member, to which 9 is pivoted and against which the spring 13 presses. As there is only one lever disclosed which operates on the pile 12, neither the count of the issue nor the claims of the amendment can be read on this disclosure. It necessarily follows that the further limitations set forth in the claims as to the arrangement of the second lever or the means for operating it are not disclosed. The structure in the later Creveling application, upon which it is contended that the claims read, is indicated by the numerals 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 30, and 32. When the current in the line 6 becomes too great, it operates the solenoid 25, which applies pressure to the carbon pile 23, reducing the resistance therein and permitting a greater current to flow through the solenoid 15, and thus raise the lever 12, which causes the resistance in the carbon pile 7 to increase, and thus reduce the current in the line 6. It is urged by Creveling that the elements 12, 30, and 32 are levers which act upon the carbon pile 23 in the manner defined in the claims. While the element 12 may operate as a lever on the carbon pile 7, it has no such action on the carbon pile 23, but merely serves as an abutment against which the pile may be pressed. The lever 30, pivoted at 31, does act as a lever to compress the carbon pile 23 against its abutment; but all the claims call for two levers, one operating on each end of the pile, which is not found in this disclosure. As the second lever, included in all the claims is not disclosed, the further limitations as to the operation and location of the second lever are also not disclosed. The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is affirmed. EX PARTE CREVELING. Decided September 22, 1916. 247 O. G., 746. 1. PATENTABILITY-DISCLOSURE OF APPLICATION. Record reviewed and Held that the appealed claims cannot be predicated upon the disclosure of this application without forcing upon them a meaning which robs them of their sense. 2. DIVISION-CARBON PILE. Held that carbon piles have attained a distinct status in the art as subjects of invention independently of the systems in which they are to be used. APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief. ELECTRIC-LIGHTING SYSTEM. Mr. Charles McC. Chapman for the applicant. EWING, Commissioner: This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting the following claims: 7. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever operating upon one end of said pile and extending toward the other end of the pile, and a second lever operating on the second-mentioned end of said pile and extending toward the first-mentioned end of said pile. 8. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever operating upon one end of said pile and extending toward and beyond the other end of the pile, and a second lever operating on the second-mentioned end of said pile and extending toward the first-mentioned end of said pile. 9. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile and a long arm extending toward and beyond the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon said second-mentioned end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the first-mentioned end of the pile. 10. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, and electro-magnets for controlling the operation of said levers. 11. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, each lever having a short arm mechanically connected to the pile and a long arm, said long arms extending substantially parallel to one another, and means for operating said levers. 12. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever having an arm operating upon one end of the pile and another arm extending toward the other end of the pile, and a second lever having an arm operating upon said second-mentioned end of the pile and another arm extending toward the first-mentioned end of the pile. 13. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever having an arm operating upon one end of the pile and another arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second lever having an arm operating upon said second-mentioned end of the pile and another arm extending toward the first |