assertion that it is of utility to provide for oiling the bolster-head with out removing the bobbin therefrom, which is sometimes inconvenient; that in the exchange of a full for an empty bobbin both hands of the attendant are employed, so that he cannot conveniently oil the bolster; that he rapidly passes from one to another, and pours oil in the holes when the bobbins are on their spindles; that in practice no oil is thrown out by the spindle upon the yarn, but it spreads upon the spindle; that a great saving of time and labor is accomplished in oiling; and that the advantages of the two holes-being that the balance of the bobbins is maintained and the attendant is enabled to see the oil applied-do not appear in the reference, and applicant, it is suggested, is entitled to claims limited to two holes, if not broadly to one, as shown.

The above is substantially corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses of long experience as manufacturers, who are familiar with the inventions of Sawyer and applicant, and one of whom it appears made the same invention and applied to the same attorneys to obtain a patent subsequent to applicant, which tends to show that the invention was a desideratum, as an improvement on Sawyer's.

The advantages of the two holes appear to be substantial, both theoretically and by the proof, and to be such as warrant the issue of a patent.

TIMOTHY GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TIMOTHY GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR OF WM. GORDON, FOR PATENT FOR TELEGRAPH-WIRE; ORIGINALLY FILED, IN THE NAME OF WILLIAM GORDON, MAY 13, 1848, AND RENEWED JANUARY 7, 1871.

(Decided June 27, 1872.)

Renewal of applications under the act of July 8, 1870.

The act of July 8, 1870, was intended to provide a remedy for cases res adjudicata. Such cases, when properly renewed, should be treated by the Office on their merits, no matter by what tribunal rejected.

Because rejected by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, they should not, on renewal, be rejected pro forma by the Office, in order to go to the court for rehearing.

LEGGETT, Commissioner :

This invention consists in inclosing a telegraph-wire in a non-conducting covering formed of strands of fibrous material, saturated, if desired, with non-conducting substance, the strands being "laid up,” as

in rope-making, and the whole coated with gutta-percha, the objects being to strengthen and insulate the wire, and at the same time leave it flexible. The claims are, first, the described method of insulating; second, the employment of fibrons strands "laid up" to give longitudinal strength; and third, in such a cable, the use of gutta-percha as an insulating substance.

The original application was filed by the inventor, William Gordon, May 13, 1848, and was once rejected the same year. In 1863, his adminis. trator, the present applicant, filed an amended specification and claim, which were rejected by all the tribunals of the Office, and finally on appeal to Judge Cartter, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, June 1, 1866, for want of novelty. Under the act of July 8, 1870, the present application was filed, which has been twice rejected by the principal examiner upon references, and appealed to the board. A majority of the board take the ground that, so far as the Office is concerned, the question raised by the present application is res adjudi. cata, and they affirm the decision of the primary examiner pro forma, in order that, if the case is to be reconsidered at all, it may be by the tribunal which rendered the final decision against it. The minority opinion is that the question presented on appeal is a proper one for the board under the act of 1870, and it proceeds to consider the references and decides them insufficient. The majority of the board assume that the present claims are substantially those of the application of 1863, rejected by Judge Cartter, but those claims are missing from the record. The argument of applicant denies that this case is res adjudicata, and asserts that it is a new case, and must stand upon its merits; that the strict rules of courts should not be followed by the Office; but even if they are, a subordinate tribunal may send a question a second time before an appellate tribunal when an error has been committed, as in this case. On the supposition that the present claims are substantially those rejected on appeal, the references are reviewed to show that they are impertinent, and a brief review of the old law is submitted showing that the practice has been to rehear application after rejection. The question for the Commissioner seems to be simply whether an application filed and rejected in 1848, renewed in 1863, and rejected for want of novelty on appeal to the court in 1866, can be renewed and treated on its merits by the Office under the act of 1870; and if not, then whether it should be rejected pro forma and allowed to go to the court. The examiner assumes the former and the board the latter.

The language of the act of 1870 is that

When an application for a patent has been rejected or withdrawn prior to the passage of this act, the applicant shall have six months from the date of such passage to renew this application or to file a new one.

This language is broad. It places no limitation upon the signification of the word "rejected" which makes it necessary or proper for the Commissioner to inquire when or at what stage of proceedings a rejection occurred, whether in or out of the Office.

All renewed applications are, in one sense, res adjudicata, and it was to reach adjudicated cases and provide a remedy that the law `was enacted. I see no ground for the action of the board in rejecting this application pro forma.

It is properly before the Office for action upon its merits, and should be so considered by the board.

The case is ordered to be returned to the board for such examination.

B. P. CORBAN.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF B. PERRY CORBAN FOR PATENT FOR LIFTSPRING FOR WATCH-CASES, FILED OCTOBER 27, 1871.

(Decided June 27, 1872.)

Patentable novelty.

Opinion on the value and validity of the points of difference asserted.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The alleged invention sought to be patented in this application consists of a sheet-metal lift-spring for watch-cases, with a right-angular wing or flange extending the whole length of its shank, and of circular form, corresponding to that of the shank. It is claimed as an article of manufacture, and the examiner and Board of Appeals have rejected it upon reference to the rejected application of Simon B. Parker, filed February 3, 1869. Parker's lift-spring has a small lip projecting at right angles from near its center, through which a screw passes, securing the spring in the watch, and acting as a pivot or fulcrum, in connection with a spur projecting at right-angles from the fixed end of the spring, securing the same to the watch-case. The differences in the construction of these devices are apparent: first, applicant's spring has a rigid shank, with a flange extending its entire length, pierced with holes, while the reference, as already stated, has but a narrow projecting lip near its center; second, applicant dispenses with the spur at the fixed end of Parker's spring, which, as asserted, undoubtedly wears the watch-case and becomes loose.

Whether these differences are of importance or not is equally apparent from a consideration of the operation of the respective springs.

Applicant's spring, because of its rigid shank, operates only at its small end, while Parker's works at both ends. The entire length of its large or shank end serves as a fastening, its base or surface in contact with the watch-case being extended, and calculated to hold it secure in

place, while Parker's spring is held in position by a pivot-screw and the end-spur, contact with the case being at two definite points, and consequently the liability to wear loose being great. Again, in adjusting applicant's spring in position, he merely turns it in place, the flange being circular for that purpose, and secures it at the proper point, while Parker's spring must be filed off to fit it by lengthening or shortening, as the case may be.

These manifest differences of construction and operation clearly determine the reference insufficient, and exhibit applicant's spring as a substantial improvement.

JAMES FARROW.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JAMES FARROW FOR LETTERS PATENT FOR AN IMPROVEMENT IN THILL-COUPLINGS.

(Decided June 27, 1872.)

Practice under Rule 44.

Where a device is claimed it is not necessary that all the elements of its construction should be mentioned in the claim, unless the novelty of the device depends upon their presence.

It is only necessary to name such elements as constitute an operative mechanism.

THACHER, Acting Commissioner :

Exception was taken by the examiner to the original first claim on the ground that, as a thill-coupling was claimed as an entirety, all the parts of the coupling should be mentioned in the claim. The second and fourth claims were also objected to on the ground that no combination existed between the elements named. Applicant then amended by striking out the fourth claim altogether, and substituting new claims for the first and second, which are again refused by the examiner on the same grounds as before. From this decision applicant appeals.

It is not necessary that every element entering into the construction of a certain device should be mentioned, even though, as in this in. stance, the device be mentioned in the claim as a whole. If there are parts which may be optionally omitted in the construction of the device, they may also be omitted in the claim. It is only necessary that such elements be named as will constitute an operative whole, unless the novelty of the device depends upon the presence of the additional ele ments. The parts named in the present first claim constitute an operative thill-coupling, and the said claim is, therefore, in proper form for

examination.

The elements named in the second claim all co-operate to form a locking device for the pin which fastens the thill-iron and jack together. The combination, therefore, appears to be legitimate.

The decision of the examiner is overruled, and the claims will be examined on their merits.

H. HAMMOND.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF HENRY HAMMOND FOR LETTERS PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN DROPS FOR SWAGING METALS.

(Decided June 27, 1872.)

Practice under Rule 43.

In an appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief the application must be considered as it was when last passed upon by the principal examiner.

In taking an appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief no amendment to the claim can be permitted.

THACHER, Acting Commissioner:

In this case the examiner having twice rejected a portion of the claims, applicant appeals to the Examiners-in-Chief. But in taking this appeal several important amendments to the claims are proposed to be made. Under these circumstances the examiner refuses to answer the "reasons of appeal" and permit the case to go forward. From this action applicant appeals to the Commissioner.

Rule 43 settles the practice of the Office in such cases. It is as follows: "The Examiners-in-Chief will consider the case as it was when last passed upon by the primary examiner, merely revising his decis ions so far as they were adverse to the appellant."

This rule precludes all amendment of the claim after it leaves the examiner, except as provided in Rule 31 for special amendments, in which case the amendment, if admitted, is sent to the examiner for his action.

The decision of the examiner must be sustained.