The tribunals below concur in holding that White is entitled to priority. Where this occurs, and the case, as in this instance, turns wholly upon questions of fact, the finding below will not be disturbed except where manifest error has been committed. White took no testimony, relying upon his filing date. The tribunals below held that, while Rees showed that some experiments along the line of the invention had been made as early as 1909, it was unnecessary to determine whether they amounted to a conception of the invention; since, if they did, he has lost his right by concealment and suppression, and what he did at that time amounted only to an abandoned experiment.

Upon careful consideration of the whole case, we concur in the unanimous holding of the tribunals below.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

IN RE BECHMAN.

Decided March 4, 1918.

252 O. G., 503; 47 App. D. C., 446.

1. PATENTABILITY-PRINTING-PRESS-INK-FOUNTAIN CONTROL.

In an application for an ink-fountain having regulating devices, individual operating means therefor, and electric controlling devices located at a point remote from the fountain Held that a claim was patentable over the prior art, although not limited to electric controlling devices.

2. SAME-SAME.

Certain claims not limited to centrally-located controlling devices for adjusting the individual regulating devices of printing-press-ink-fountains Held to be too broad in view of the art of record.

Mr. Arthur E. Dowell for the appellant.

Mr. T. A. Hostetler for the Commissioner of Patents.

ROBB, J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office tribunals rejecting claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 30 in appellant's application for patent. Claims 2 and 11 sufficiently illustrate the rejected claims and read as follows:

2. In combination a fountain provided with a plurality of devices for regulating the supply from different points thereof, with electrically controlled means for independently operating the adjusting devices.

11. In combination with an ink fountain having adjustable devices for regulating the amount of ink delivered by the fountain, and means for individually

operating said devices; with controlling devices located at a point remote from the fountain, and connection between said controlling devices and the several operating means, substantially as described.

The invention relates to à control for inking-fountains in printingpresses and marks a distinct and radical advance in the art. In his specification the applicant says:

This invention has particular reference to inking mechanism for large printing presses and other color applying machines, and its major object is to enable the amount of ink supplied from any ink fountain to be controlled by means located at any desired point remote from the fountain; and whereby different amounts of ink may be supplied by the same fountain at different points of its length, and the amount of ink supplied at any desired point in the length of the fountain roll can be increased or diminished at the will of the operator.

The specification then directs attention to the fact that heretofore the screws controlling the scraper-blade of the ordinary type of inkfountains have been manipulated manually, and that in large presses the pressman has been compelled to climb to the different tiers of the press and sometimes to stop the press entirely to make the proper adjustments. The specification continues:

My invention more specifically provides means whereby each fountain of a press, or any set of fountains, may be controlled from a central point or switch board, and the operator by simply pressing the proper buttons thereon can increase or diminish the supply of ink obtained from any given fountain, at any point or section in the length of the fountain roll. The controlling devices can be located at any convenient point, and in practice would be preferably located where the operator can observe the product of the press and can increase or diminish the supply of ink to any part of the width of the paper, or printed web, as he pleases, without having to leave the spot; and if the color on the web be too light or too heavy it can be increased or diminished practically instantly without the pressman having to leave his station or climb to upper decks of the press.

The specification then points out that the advantage of such an electrically-controlled apparatus lies in the fact that the pressman may have the switchboard located near the folder, from which point all adjustments may be made.

The first group of claims, including claim 2, was rejected because in the opinion of the Patent Office they are sufficiently broad to cover the adoption of a plurality of independent electric circuits and motors in connection with the machines of Goss and Spalckhaver, patents for which were granted in 1907 and 1910, respectively. These patents disclose ink-fountains in which manually-operated means are provided. at the ends of the fountains for adjusting the individual screws. It is the view of the Patent Office that it was common practice to employ electric circuits and magnets to control mechanical motion, but it is strange, indeed, if this was so obvious, that Goss and Spalckhaver did not employ them instead of the less desirable devices they did use. However, we agree with the Patent Office that this group of

claims is very general and not drawn to cover applicant's real invention, which was a centrally-located control for inking-fountains. As the Assistant Commissioner said:

Applicant has devised a scheme for controlling the inking fountain from a distant point, preferably the point where the paper issues from the press.

The Assistant Commissioner thereupon allowed applicant nine、 claims, which had been disallowed by the lower tribunals. But in the allowed claims applicant was restricted to electric means 'for controlling the fountains. We do not think he should be thus limited. He is the first to conceive and work out the idea of distant control and should be given a claim as broad as his invention. Obviously, his claims ought not to be so narrowed as to invite competitors, by substitution of other means, to effect the same result and thus deprive the real inventor of the fruits of his discovery. We think the allowance of claim 11, or of a claim or claims of equal breadth, will accomplish the desired end.

The decision is reversed as to claim 11 but affirmed as to the other claims involved.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

HENDLER V. HANSEN.

Decided May 27, 1918.

252 O. G., 504; 48 App. D. C., 146.

1. INTERFERENCE-ISSUE CONSTRUED-LAMP-LIGHTERS.

Where the issue in an interference recites igniting mechanism that is operable by a sweep of the palm of the hand, Held that a device in which a corresponding mechanism is arranged to be operated by the thumb or finger, although it may be operated by a sweep of the hand, comes within the terms of the issue.

2. SAME-PRIORITY.

Record reviewed and priority awarded to Hendler, the senior party.

Mr. James Q. Rice and Mr. R. F. Steward for the appellant. Mr. Melville Church, Mr. James R. Offield, and Mr. James A. Watson for the appellee.

VAN ORSDEL, J.:

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to the junior party, Hansen. The invention relates to "miners' lamp lighters." The issue is in four counts, of which count 1 is illustrative:

In an acetylene lamp, the combination of a body part provided with means for generating gas, a reflector supported on the body part, a burner within the reflector for receiving the generated gas, and a pyrophoric ignition attachment

comprising a spark wheel, said mechanism being so positioned with reference to the plane of the outer edge of the reflector that when the palm of the hand is wiped across said reflector it will engage the periphery of the wheel to cause rotation thereof and operation of the pyrophoric ignition mechanism to ignite the gas.

Hendler described the operation of his invention in his specification as follows:

The operation of my improved device is apparent, for it is only necessary to place the thumb or finger on the serrated edges of the disk 8 and to partially rotate said disk with a quick motion, and as a result, the teeth on said disk scrape across the forward end of the section of spark-producing material, and as a result, sparks of fire are produced which are thrown directly across the orifice in the burner tip 13, thereby igniting the gas as it issues therefrom.

It was held by the Commissioner and the Board of Examiners-inChief that the location of the sparking wheel on the reflector is of the essence of the invention. We think this was error. The location of the wheel is merely mechanical, so long as it can be successfully operated by a sweep of the hand. This sweep may be in either a perpendicular, horizontal, or angular direction to best suit the convenience and demands of the trade. The invention consists in the ability of the user, from the relative position of the spark-wheel to the rim of the reflector, to successfully light the lamp by a sweep of the palm of the hand across the face of the reflector in contact with the sparkwheel.

True, Hendler contemplated this operation by a sweep of the thumb or finger; but the Examiner of Interferences, in awarding priority to Hendler, found from a comparative operation of the devices of the respective parties that each was equally capable of operation by a sweep of the hand. This conclusion is strongly supported by the fact that over twenty-five thousand of the Hendler lamps have been manufactured, put on the market and successfully used. Further convincing proof is afforded from our investigation of the operation of the respective devices at bar. Each could be successfully operated by a sweep of the thumb or finger, and each could be successfully operated by a sweep of the hand.

The device is a simple one; and, where it clearly appears that it is inherently capable of being operated in the manner described in the issue, it comes within the rule of law that the patentee is entitled to all the uses to which his invention may be put. As held by the Examiner, we think the present case comes clearly within this rule. With this point settled in Hendler's favor, the proof clearly establishes his right to prevail.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is reversed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Reversed.

84150°-19- -15

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

FICKLEN V. BAKER.

Decided April 1, 1918.

252 O. G., 743; 47 App. D. C., 587.

1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY-RIGHT TO MAKE THE CLAIMS.

In the pavement disclosed by B.'s application, where reinforcing-plates of expansion-joints for concrete sections rest upon the prepared foundation and the application contains a statement that the plates may be of less width. Held that this forms no basis for incorporating an additional figure in a substitute application showing the plates out of contact with the foundation, for the purpose of contesting an interference with a patent, the counts of the issue being construed as limited to reinforcing means supported by the concrete out of engagement with the earth road-bed." 2. SAME-SAME-SAME.

66

Held that B.'s application, containing the counts of the issue, cannot be 'sustained on the specification and claims as originally filed, and priority is awarded to F., the senior party.

Mr. W. H. C. Clarke for the appellant.

Mr. L. S. Bacon and Mr. J. H. Milans for the appellee.

VAN ORSDEL, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding.

Appellant Ficklen, the senior party, filed his application August 21, 1909, on which he obtained a patent June 2, 1914. Appellee Baker, the junior party, filed his application February 16, 1910, which was sent to issue April 7, 1914. The issuance of the patent, however, was suspended at the instance of Baker, who filed a substituted specification in July, 1914, in which he copied Ficklen's first three claims, on which this interference was declared.

The invention of the issue relates to a concrete pavement provided with expansion joints extending from the top of the pavement to the roadbed, and reinforcing means embedded in the edges of the concrete blocks at the joints. The Commissioner properly has defined the reinforcing means as—

limited to reinforcing means which are supported by the concrete out of engagement with the earth road-bed.

The counts of the issue are as follows:

1. A pavement comprising an earth road-bed, a crust supported directly on said road-bed and comprising a plurality of concrete sections of relatively large area separated from each other by expansion joints extending from the top of the pavement to the road-bed, and reinforcing means embedded in and carried by and continuing along the upper portions of the edges of the concrete sections at the joints which require reinforcement.