a cavity extending transversely of a channel in which the shank of the handle is located Held to be the exercise of mere mechanical skill in view of the art of record. Mr. A. B. Stoughton for the appellant. Mr. T. A. Hostetler for the Commissioner of Patents. VAN ORSDEL, J.: This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing appellant a patent for means for attaching handles to storage-battery cases. The application for patent contained the following claims: 1. Means for attaching handles to storage battery cases which comprise the combination of a case wall having a channel extending in the direction of its plane and located inside of its inner and outer faces and having a transverse cavity intersecting the channel and extending through the outer face and terminating short of the inner face, a round handle shank filling the channel and extending across the cavity and having a roughened portion opposite the cavity, and a plug arranged in and confined to the cavity and completely encircling and cast onto the shank for immovably holding it. 2. Means for attaching handles to storage battery cases which comprise the combination of a case wall having a channel extending in the direction of its plane and located inside of its inner and outer faces and having a larger transverse cavity intersecting the channel and extending through one face and terminating short of the other face, a handle shank in the first channel and across the cavity, and a plug immovably holding the shank and arranged in the cavity and cast onto the shank and completely encircling it. The structure is described by the Primary Examiner as consisting— of a case wall having a channel extending in the direction of its plane and located inside of its inner and outer faces, and having a transverse cavity intersecting the channel and extending through the outer face and terminating short of the inner face, a handle shank filling the channel and extending across the cavity and having a roughened portion opposite the cavity, and a plug arranged in and confined in the cavity and completely encircling and cast onto the shank for immovably holding it. Two references are cited against appellant, a patent to one. Curtiss, (115,582), dated June 6, 1871, and a patent to one Bryant, (468,639,) dated February 9, 1892. The patent to Bryant discloses a loop-handle adapted for use on brooms, umbrellas, etc. The loop is inserted into the end of the handle for the purpose of suspending the article from a hook or other device. It shows loop-shaped handles in slots or cavities to be old in the art. Although Bryant retains the loop in the cavity by a wooden plug held in place by a screw, it readily suggests the substitution of lead run into the cavity in a molten state, thus filling the cavity and gripping the shanks of the loop. While the Bryant patent only suggests the broad issue set forth in the claims, the Curtiss patent completes the anticipation of appel lant's alleged invention. The Curtiss device consists of means for securing the blade of a screw-driver in the handle. This is accomplished by a longitudinal hole in the end of the handle for receiving the shank of the blade and a transverse intersecting opening for receiving the molten metal. The shank of the blade is roughened with notches to receive the molten metal, which grips the shank and prevents it from pulling out of or turning in the handle. This almost completely answers appellant's description of means for retaining the shanks of the handle-loop in the walls or sides of the battery-case. With the devices of Bryant and Curtiss before him, appellant, by the exercise of mere mechanical skill, could readily accomplish the result here disclosed. 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.] GAMMETER v. LISTER. LISTER V. GAMMETER. Decided May 27, 1918. 253 O. G., 261; 48 App. D. C., 145. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY. [Memorandum opinion.] Record reviewed and Held that priority was properly awarded to G. as to claims 1 to 12, inclusive, and to L., the senior party, as to claim 15. (For Commissioner's decision, see ante, 37; 253 0. G., 259.) Mr. H. A. Dodge and Mr. R. M. Pierson for Gammeter. SMYTH, C. J.: This appeal and cross-appeal involve the right of priority as to an invention for properly laying a sheet of fabric on a circumferential tubular core in the making of rubber tire casings so that the fabric may be stretched and shaped— prior to its actual incorporation in the tire and also at the moment when it is applied to the core upon which the tire is being built. There were fifteen claims of the issue. Gammeter, who is the junior party, moved to dissolve the interference on the ground that Lister did not disclose the invention of the issue. His motion was sustained as to claims 13 and 14, but overruled as to the rest. Thereupon proceedings were resumed before the Examiner of Interferences as to the remaining claims. Gammeter offered no proof, but stood on the files in the proceeding. Priority was awarded by the Examiner of Inter ferences to Lister as to all the claims before him for consideration. This action was affirmed on appeal by the Examiners in Chief. The Assistant Commissioner reversed the Examiners in Chief as to claims 1 to 12, inclusive, but affirmed them as to claim 15. We have carefully examined the record and are clearly of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner was right for the reasons given in his opinion (ante, 37; 253 O. G., 259). No useful purpose would be served either by repeating here the arguments employed by him or by stating additional ones. His decision is affirmed. Affirmed. [Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.] HENGGI v. DALLMEYER. Decided May 27, 1918. 253 O. G., 514; 48 App. D. C., 141. 1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY. Record reviewed and Held to establish that Henggi was entitled to an award of priority. 2. SAME SUFFICIENCY OF DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS. Held that ordinarily a disclosure to others to be sufficient must so describe the purported invention as to make its nature clear to persons competent to understand it. (Eastman v. Houston, C. D., 1901, 386; 95 O. G., 2064; 18 App. D. C., 135.) Mr. C. T. Milans for the appellant. Mr. R. D. Totten for the appellee. SMYTH, C. J.: The controversy in this case is in respect to which one of the parties originated the device of the issue, called in brief "wing-dies" for making "creep-checks" which are used to prevent— railroad rails from moving along the tracks in the direction of the length of the rails. The Acting Examiner of Interferences awarded priority to Henggi. On appeal his decision was reversed by the Examiners in Chief, and their action was affirmed by the First Assistant Commissioner. Ali the transactions referred to herein occurred in 1913. Dallmeyer at the dates given was the secretary and treasurer of the Valley Forging Company and exercised a general management over the manufacturing operations of the company. Henggi, until a few days previous to the taking of the testimony, was employed by the same company as factory superintendent. Henggi claims conception and disclosure in June and reduction to practice in September, while Dallmeyer asserts that he conceived the invention October 5, disclosed it October 6, and reduced it to practice October 25. Dallmeyer is the junior party and therefore has the burden of proof. (Hunt v. McCaslin, C. D., 1897, 401; 79 O. G., 861; 10 App. D. C., 527; Smith v. Foley et al., C. D., 1908, 501; 136 O. G., 850; 31 App. D. C., 518.) He testified that his company having received an order for creep-checks, an article which had not been manufactured by it before, a certain method for making them was adopted, but this proved to be too slow and was soon rejected; that on Sunday, October 5, he conceived the invention of the issue, made drawings only part of which was offered in evidence, the other part-that which covered the main features of the device-having been lost, he said; that on Monday, October 6, he disclosed the invention to McVey, vice-president of his company, and to Henggi; and that immediately afterward he and Henggi prepared drawings of the dies. Testimony corroborating his statements is essential to his case. (Malcom v. Richards, ante, 171; 250 O. G., 1000; 47 App. D. C., 582; and cases there cited.) But he has failed to produce any. His wife testified that she saw him at work upon sketches, but she could give no description of them further than that they were for the purpose of reducing the cost of manufacturing creep-checks. McVey said that Dallmeyer stated on Monday morning, October 6, that he had worked out a scheme which would reduce the operations on the creep-checks; that he had a small sketch which he wanted the witness to examine but that the latter only glanced at it and told him that he would look at it later. It does not appear that he did so. McVey also testified that at the same time Dallmeyer said he would go over to the shop and see what Mr. Henggi thought of it, referring to the sketch. This is all the corroborating testimony adduced by Dallmeyer and it falls very far short of answering the law's requirements. Ordinarily a disclosure to be sufficient must so describe the purported invention as to make its nature clear to persons competent to understand it, (Eastman v. Houston, C. D., 1901, 386; 95 O. G., 2064; 18 App. D. C., 135), it is manifest that the foregoing testimony does not establish any such disclosure by Dallmeyer. Henggi contends' that he conceived the invention in June and made drawings some weeks later, fixing the date by the birth of his younger child; that sometime in August he disclosed the invention to Dallmeyer who rejected it because, as stated by him, it was too expensive; that Dallmeyer tried two methods for making the creepchecks but found them unsatisfactory, and then fell back on Henggi's idea. This, according to Henggi, was sometime in September, when, as he asserts, he made drawings, which have been offered in evidence and embody the issue. He also says that the dies were complete, and were operated, early in October, and that as a reward for his services in inventing them he was given a raise in salary by McVey about November 1. He denies disclosure of the invention by Dallmeyer to him. Henggi's wife and son testified that he was working on drawings in June for a tool or die which would bend both ends of a piece of metal at the same time. This is one of the things accomplished by the invention. Yute, a pressman, employed by the Valley Forging Company, upon whose press the first dies were installed, says that Henggi told him that he, Henggi, had disclosed to Dallmeyer a set of dies which would increase the speed of manufacturing the creep-checks, but that Dallmeyer rejected them as too expensive. He describes the dies by calling them wing-dies, which appears to reveal only two of the distinguishing features of the invention. Jones, another machinist in the employ of the same company, testifies to the same effect as Yute. They also support Henggi with respect to other things touching which he and Dallmeyer differ; e. g., Henggi says there were two experiments made before the wing-dies were adopted, and Dallmeyer says there was but one, while Yute and Jones agree with Henggi. Yute also said that the wing-dies, without the "kicker," an important but not an indispensable part, were tried out by him just before September 30, the date of his marriage, and that when he returned from his wedding tour about two weeks later the dies were complete. If this be true, then the greater part of the device was manufactured and in a condition to be tried out before Dallmeyer thought of it. Yute and Jones were in a position to know the facts about which they testified. They are still in the employ of the Forging Company, and this circumstance gives added weight to their testimony in favor of Henggi. McVey admits that Henggi's salary was increased at the time mentioned by the latter, but does not admit that it was done on account of the success of the invention. With regard to that McVey says he gave both Dallmeyer and Henggi credit for the device. Dallmeyer also admits the raise in Henggi's salary. We have thus given the testimony in outline. A more detailed analysis of it might be made but we deem it unnecessary in view of the exhaustive opinion of the Acting Examiner of Interferences whose conclusions we adopt. It is true that the corroborating testimony of neither party concerning conception and disclosure is as complete as it might be, but the position of Dallmeyer in this respect is worse than that of his opponent, and as the burden is on him he cannot prevail over Henggi. Therefore the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and priority of invention of the subject-matter of the interference is awarded to Henggi, the senior party. Reversed. |