The claims cover a method of generating gas which consists in maintaining a mass of incandescent fluid, forcing the air through the same to bring about a partial combustion and at the same time causing a relative movement between one portion of the incandescent mass in respect to another portion of the incandescent mass and independently of any relative movement of the incandescent fuel in respect to the ash. In other words, it comprises the twisting of the material in a producer in such a way that the movement of the mass controlled by relatively rotating parts will occur within the incandescent

zone.

In the apparatus shown in applicant's device for the performance of this process the producer is made in four sections. The magazine for supplying the coal leads into one side of an upper stationary zone. The next lower zone comprises a rotatable drum. Beneath this rotatable drum is a stationary zone and beneath the stationary zone a second rotatable drum which, as shown in the drawings, is adapted to be driven at a different speed from the upper rotatable drum.

The Lackner patent shows a producer provided with an upper stationary drum beneath which are two superposed rotating drums, the lower one being in the form of an inverted frustum of a cone. The air provided in the appellant's device, as in the Lackner device, is introduced in the lowest rotating drum. It is contended that the Lackner patent does not anticipate the applicant's process in that there is no disclosure that the twisting action occurs in the incandescent zone and that by reason of the illustration, which shows the intermediate drum to be water-jacketed, whereas the lower conical drum is not illustrated as water-jacketed, the inference is justified that the lower section contains ashes, but not any portion of the incandescent zone or active fire. It is pointed out that if the fire should extend to the unjacketed section it would soon burn away the single metal wall thereof or heat up the gearing so as to render it ineffective or destroy it.

It is admitted that in all downdraft gas-producers, where fuel is fed into the top and ashes taken out of the bottom, there are distinct strata maintained in the producer, such strata representing the effect of the gas-producer upon the coal at various periods during the process; that at or near the top of the producer, where the fire first strikes the coal, the coal tends to agglomerate; that below this cakingzone the fire burns more actively, and that beneath the latter zone the fire diminishes until the bottom of the producer contains dead ashes and accumulated cinders.

It is stated that the essence of the present invention consists in causing the relative motion at the intermediate or incandescent zone, at which point clinkers are formed and the draft likely to blow holes

through the lighter incandescent material, and that the appealed claims refer specifically to the relative movement of the materials at this particular point-namely, the incandescent zone. It is urged that while the patent to Lackner states that the object of the invention is

to give motion to the contents of the generator so as to prevent the agglomeration of the fuel

this statement refers to an agitator or stirrer which is arranged to prevent caking and that although the patent states that

a certain motion of the contents of the generator is produced which prevents the agglomeration of the fuel, checks the formation of hollow spaces, and causes the ashes and clinkers to continuously move downward and toward the axis of the generator. The ashes and clinkers are thus diminished and finally forced out at the lower end

it does not set forth the point at which the rotation serves to check the formation of hollow spaces, but implies that this action occurs at the same point where it prevents agglomeration of the fuel. It is pointed out that the lower portion of the rotating drum in the Lackner patent is not water-cooled, and in view of these statements it is urged that the inference is warranted that the twisting occurs at a point within the intermediate section and not at the incandescent zone, as claimed by the appellant.

Appellant has presented at the hearing an affidavit by Clair W. Fairbank in which the allegations above set forth are in substance affirmed. This affidavit comprises merely an expert opinion and does not set forth material facts other than those which may be gathered from the face of the instruments discussed. For reasons set forth in the case of Pym v. Hadaway (C. D., 1907, 189; 129 O. G., 480) this affidavit is entitled to little, if any weight other than as an argument in the case. It may be stated, however, that this discussion does not, in my opinion, set forth fairly the disclosure of the Lackner patent. In the first place, the object of the Lackner invention is stated asto give motion to the contents of the generator so as to prevent the agglomeration of the fuel, check the formation of hollow spaces, and cause the ashes and clinkers to continuously move downward and toward the axis of the generator.

In applicant's specification the object of the invention is said to be to overcome the formation of blow-holes or chimneys in the mass of the producer and to cause the introduction of the tar or bituminous substances of the coal into the incandescent zone. The manner in which this is accomplished is described in general terms as follows:

* * I cause portions of the incandescent fuel bed to move bodily with reference to each other and I cause the rich tarry gas from the upper part of the producer to pass downward and introduce it into the body of incandescent fuel at or near the point of relative motion thereof. By these operations a!! blow holes in formation are broken down and the fuel forced to take compact form,

while the tarry constituent of the rich gas introduced into the moving fuel is so acted on by the incandescent carbon as to "fix" or render permanent the gas and allow it to be easily cleansed and prepared for use either as heat or power gas. Owing to the continual movement of the fuel two important results are attained with regard to the blast of tarry gas; first, the gas is forced to spread over and through the mass of fuel, insuring uniform results and utilization of all the heat in the glowing fuel for the transformation of the gas and second, the tendency of the blast of gas to travel through a fixed path in a concentrated current is entirely resisted and the formation of blow holes thereby prevented.

It is thus apparent that in the Lackner patent, as in appellant's device, the relative rotation of portions of the mass of fuel is said to accomplish the same result-to wit, to prevent the formation of blowholes or chimneys-and it is believed to be obvious, in view of the fact that the relative positions of the supply and discharge are the same in the two structures, that the functions are the same. Second, it is to be observed that in the Lackner specification the gas generator is said to comprise a

stationary upper part a, one or more middle parts b, rotating on the axis x y of the generator, and a lower part c, which also rotates on said axis.

As to the relative rotation of the parts b and c it is stated:

This rotation is effected in connection with the parts b and c either in the same or opposite direction and with the same or varying velocity.

Farther along in the specification, lines 79 to 83, it is stated:

For some kinds of fuel it is preferable to reduce the rotating speed of the middle parts b of the shaft to zero-i. e., to render the same stationary.

It is therefore obvious that Lackner has disclosed a structure in which provision is made for the relative rotation of the parts of his device in such a manner that the twisting action may be effected in the incandescent zone and that the process claimed by the appellant will be performed.

As to the allegation that the Lackner patent does not constitute a reference because it should be inferred by the absence of the waterjacketing of the lower rotating drum that the same is not adapted to contain incandescent material, it is sufficient to say that in lines 75 to 78 of the Lackner specification it is stated that

the shaft parts b and c are cooled when required-for instance, by water or steam.

In view of these facts I am clearly of the opinion that the disclosure in the Lackner patent is such as to justify the conclusion that the process claimed by the applicant is performed by that apparatus and is ample to warrant the conclusion that the claims do not set forth a new and patentable invention.

I find no error in the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief, and it is accordingly affirmed.

MOODY V. COLBY.

Decided January 27, 1913.

198 O. G., 897.

1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY-EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.

Where C. disclosed the main plan of the invention in issue to M., who was the chief engineer of the X Co., and M. made certain suggestions as to the details of the invention and a contract was entered into between C. and the X Co. to build a furnace embodying these suggestions, Held that the technical relation of employer and employee existed between C. and M.

2. SAME-SAME-SAME.

Evidence reviewed and Held to establish that C. disclosed the main plan of the invention to M., and whatever developments thereon were made by M. inured to the benefit of C. and that priority was properly awarded the latter. APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief.

ELECTRIC INDUCTION-FURNACE.

Mr. Albert G. Davis for Moody. (Mr. Alexander D. Lunt and Mr. Charles McClair of counsel.)

Mr. Park Benjamin for Colby.

TENNANT, Assistant Commissioner:

This is an appeal by Moody from a decision of the Examiners-inChief affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority to Colby.

The invention to which this interference relates involves an electric furnace of the induction or transformer type of which the secondary winding is composed of a ring of metal placed in an annular crucible, while the primary winding comprises a coil in proximity to the crucible and which by its inductive effect produces sufficient current in the metal composing the secondary to melt the same.

The issue of the interference is set forth in one count, which reads as follows:

An electric furnace comprising an annular crucible, a core passing centrally through said crucible, and a primary winding divided into two parts, one inside of said crucible and the other outside thereof, said winding being tubular.

The issue does not specify that the winding is made tubular in order that it may perform the function of a cooling device, although there would appear to be little, if any, reason for making it tubular unless it were to be so used. In the device built the winding was used in this manner, and the case was considered throughout by the parties thereto as though this were the purpose of the tubular winding.

The real parties in interest are the General Electric Company, Moody's assignee, and the American Electric Furnace Company, the assignee of Colby.

Testimony was taken and filed on behalf of Moody. No testimony was taken on behalf of Colby; but the witnesses who testified on behalf of Moody were cross-examined at length by counsel for Colby. There is little dispute as to the main facts leading up to the development of the invention and the building of a furnace embodying the same by the General Electric Company. During the summer of 1903 Waldo, who was a friend of Colby's, told Moody, who was then the chief engineer of the General Electric Company on transformers and similar devices, that Colby was desirous of building an electric induction-furnace. Waldo introduced Colby to Moody, and they had two or three conferences in New York city and in Schenectady. It appears to have been finally agreed between the parties that Colby would supply the crucible and that Moody would have the inductionfurnace built. On or about November 12, 1903, Waldo sent Moody a blueprint of a crucible which Colby was having constructed, and on the next day Colby wrote to Moody, giving certain estimates that he had made, stating that he had ordered a crucible of certain dimensions and saying, further:

I have made the opening in the center of the crucible 5" for the purpose of providing room for the water jacket which will undoubtedly be required to keep down the temperature of the core.

He also asked for certain estimates as to the cost of experimental work, etc.

A few days later Moody communicated in writing to one of his assistants named Gehrkens certain ideas concerning the proposed furnace and suggested, among other things, that the primary winding be made in two sections and that in proximity thereto there be placed a cooling-coil composed of brass tubing wound in back-turn sections. In December, 1903, Colby shipped two crucibles to Moody at Schenectady. About this time Moody left for a business trip to the Pacific Coast, but while away carried on a correspondence in regard to the furnaces. Under date of December 16, 1903, Gehrkens wrote to the head of the cost department of the General Electric Company asking for factory costs concerning a furnace constructed in accordance with certain data given and in this letter stated that the primary winding would consist of two spiral coils, one inside and one outside of the crucible, and that these would consist of copper tubing elliptical in section. A furnace was built by the General Electric Company, which was completed and tested in the month of May, 1904. The building and testing of this furnace is admittedly a reduction to practice of the invention in issue, and each party claims the benefit thereof.

The facts as above outlined establish in my opinion, as was held by the lower tribunals, the technical relation of employer and employee between Colby and Moody, although as a matter of fact it