monopoly of the process in dispute. But notwithstanding the fact seems apparent and indisputable that there are two distinct processes set forth in the patent of July 6, and now well known in the art of making arti. ficial stone, it is strenuously mantained by counsel for Norris that they are identical in principle, and mere immaterial and unpatentable modifications one of the other. It is important that this question, if it is a question, be correctly determined, for it is proved that Norris had knowledge of what is designated the "exhaust" process before the date of the sealing of the English patent of the applicants. Both these alleged processes are designed to be employed in forming the Ransome concrete stone. This stone is a compound of silex and silicate of calcium; but, the latter being insoluble, it is found impracticable to cause their direct admixture and union to form a solid. This is accomplished by first forming a plastic mixture of silex and soluble silicate of soda, and then permeating it with chloride of calcium. The effect is to form silicate of calcium and harden the mixture, and at the same time leave a residuum of chloride of soda, which must be washed away. This effect was first accomplished, imperfectly it is said, by merely bathing the plastic mixture first formed in chloride of calcium, or by forcing the latter into the interstices of the former by pressure within an exhaustive receiver. (See English patent of Frederick Ransome, No. 877 of 1861.) This latter process of placing the plastic mixture in an exhausted air-tight vessel, and then admitting chloride of calcium and applying hydraulic or other pressure to it, is the one first described in the Norris patent of July 6. The one next described, which is alleged to be much superior, is that now in controversy, and cousists in placing the plastic mixture described in a vessel having a perforated bottom inclosed by an air-tight chamber, which is connected by a pipe with an air-pump. Chloride of calcium is placed in the vessel over the mixture, and the air exhausted from beneath. Pressure from above other than that of the atmosphere may or may not be applied, at option, to drive the solution through the mass. Afterward water may be applied in the same manner to wash away the residuary chloride of soda. This is termed the "filtering" process. It is evident to me that by the process first named, or the "exhaust" process, the chloride of calcium or water could only be forced into and not through the mass, as by the filtering process, which affords an opportunity for its escape. It is also evident and is in proof that the result of employing the filtering process would be a more perfect hardening of the stone in all its parts than could be accomplished by the exhaust process. I regard these processes, therefore, as materially different from each other. I agree with the board that the rebutting evidence put in by the applicants was properly admitted and considered by the primary examiner, and their decision, awarding priority to Ransome, Bessemer & Ransome, is affirmed.

J. S. JOHNSON & CO.

APPEAL FROM THE EXAMINER OF TRADE-MARKS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF J. S. JOHNSON & CO. FOR THE REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN TRADE-MARKS.

(Decided September 12, 1872.)

Initial letters add no legal character to a phrase which is not a lawful trade-mark without them. Therefore, "P. P. P.," when used in connection with the words of which they are the initials, are as much descriptive as the words themselves, and on that account are not a lawful trade-mark.

Nor can the addition of a date help the matter; wherefore such words and figures as "Established A. D. 1810" do not constitute an arbitrary distinguishing mark.

THACHER, Acting Commissioner :

This appeal covers two applications.

The first is for the registration of the words and letters "Parson's Purgative Pills, P. P. P.," as a trade-mark. The decision in Blake. slee & Co., Commissioner's Decisions, 1871, p. 284, indicates the action that should be taken in this instance. In that case the Commissioner held that the addition of the initials "C. O." to "Cundurango Ointment" was not sufficient to entitle applicants to registration. I am unable to make any distinction between these two cases; they appear to be perfectly analogous. In both instances the letters themselves would probably be regarded as a legal trademark, but when used in connection with words of which they are the initials they lose the characteristics of an arbitrary device. Their precise meaning becomes evident from the words which they accompany, and they are as much descriptive as the words themselves. Hence initial letters can add nothing to a phrase which is not a lawful trademark without them.

The second application asks for the registration of the words "Johnson's American Anodyne Liniment, Established A. D. 1810." It is claimed that the phrase "Established A. D. 1810” is an arbitrary distinguishing mark, and that by the addition thereof the whole is constituted a legal trade-mark. This view of the case does not seem to be correct. The additional phrase indicates the date of the discovery of the liniment, or the commencement of its manufacture, and to this extent is descriptive in its nature. Any other person who made a similar liniment the same year would have as much right to use these particular words as the applicants in this case. It would be unjust to give one person or firm the monopoly of words used in a descriptive way, to which others might have the same right as descriptive matter.

The decision of the examiner is affirmed in both applications.

REISINGER vs. CLARK.

Interference.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPLICATION OF GEO. M. REISINGER AND THE PATENT OF JOHN CLARK FOR PISTON-PACKING.

(Decided September 24, 1872.)

Invention-Diligence.

In determining the question of reasonable diligence regard must be had for the circumstances surrounding the inventor.

He who is first in the conception of an invention, and has subsequently used reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting it, is held to be the prior inventor.

THACHER, Acting Commissioner:

The application of Clark was filed July 27, and his patent granted September 12, 1871; that of Reisinger was filed October 18, 1871. Both the parties are residents of Harrisburgh, and have had business relations connected with this and a former invention of Clark's upon which this is an improvement, Reisinger being foreman of the machine-shop where Clark has had work done. This is, therefore, one of those perplexing controversies in which the evidence is voluminous and conflicting ; charges of pirating are mutual, and the difficulty of determining which of the parties is entitled to judgment of priority is exceedingly great. It is more agreeable to assume, when it can be done, that both parties are actual inventors, and upon this hypothesis simply determine from the evidence which is prior in time. The invention in dispute consists of a combination of parts composing a steam-tight piston-head or follower. An annular wedge or frustum is inclosed within an open ring having interior inclined ribs or projections, against which it is held by confined spiral springs, so as to expand the open ring, which in turn expands the surrounding divided packing-rings of the follower, making it steam-tight within the cylinder. The object of the springs is to automatically increase the expansion of the follower as the parts in contact are worn away by friction. Clark invented a piston-packing patented May 17, 1870, working on the same principle, except that set-screws were used instead of springs, and therefore it was not automatic in its adjustment to correct the effects of wearing away by friction. There was also a slight difference in the construction of the main expanding-ring. Its entire interior periphery was oblique to its axis, instead of being provided with inclined projections, as the present ring is, whereby it is rendered lighter and its frictional surface diminished. These differences, in my opinion, constitute the present packing a patentable improvement, and therefore the question raised by counsel as to that may be dismissed.

The invention is clearly defined; the only question is, which of the parties is the prior inventor. It is not a deduction to go entirely unchallenged, which the board hint at, that because Clark is the foundation inventor he is therefore more likely to be the inventor of this improvement. Indeed, the history of many arts shows that the opposite is sometimes the rule. Often the rude basis only has been developed by the pioneer, and others have made the improvements. The right course, no doubt, is to disregard all considerations of this character and rely wholly upon the evidence when that is sufficient. It is fully established by Reisinger that he made his invention, if he made it at all, in the summer of 1869, and in January, 1870, he applied it in the shop of which he was foreman. So far as the reduction of the invention to practice is concerned, Reisinger was ahead of Clark. But it has long been established that he who is first to conceive the idea of an invention, and uses reasonable diligence in reducing it to practice, must be regarded the prior inventor. Clark swears that he conceived the invention and made a sketch of it "Exhibit H"-in the early part of 1868. This sketch and others he alleges he exhibited to various parties, and a number of witnesses assert positively that Clark showed them sketches in pencil during the year 1868, exhibiting the invention in question, and this testimony has not been shaken by any introduced in behalf of Reisinger. The history of his efforts since that date, in my opinion, shows reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting it, and he was first to seek and procure a patent. He was not a manufacturer nor a man of wealth, or even intelligence, and therefore could not promptly undertake costly experiments. The best he could do for some time was to "talk up" his invention and bring it to the attention of those likely to be able to use it; and this it appears he did. Its application in Hickok's engine ast "Clark's patent"-as he says by his consent, and certainly with his knowledge-and afterward in the Muhlenberg engine in the city waterworks in May, 1870, may be regarded as such experimental tests as were judicious before applying for patent.

These facts are decisive in Clark's favor, and priority of invention must be awarded to him. The decision of the board is affirmed.

JNO. FARREL.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JNO. FARREL FOR PATENT FOR BURGLARPROOF SAFES.

(Decided September 24, 1872.)

Patentable combination.

A novel relative arrangement of well-known parts which specially adapts them to co-operate in producing an improved result, evinces invention and constitutes a patentable combination.

THACHER, Acting Commissioner:

Applicant claims

The combination, with a mass of franklinite or other like metal, of the outer protecting lamina of high and low steel or their equivalent, and the inner backing or support of heavy wrought iron, substantially as described.

He provides for safe-walls a thick layer of franklinite, a strong inner packing of wrought iron, and an outer covering of alternate laminæ of high and low steel. This arrangement of parts is alleged to be such as to obstruct the operations of the burglar whether he employs the blowpipe and drill or breaking implements, or both. In the first place the thick body of franklinite prevents, by its conducting powers, such ready heating as to draw the temper and fit the high steel for the drill within a burglar's time, and the low steel and wrought-iron backing prevent the franklinite, which cannot be drilled, from being broken by blows.

There is no such arrangement of parts shown in any of the references, and this seems to be an improvement in construction upon what they show. Paige has the plates and Floyd the franklinite. But neither of them shows the two united together, or with a third element, as applicant does, in such a way as to fully secure the benefit of the properties of each, and to cause them to co-operate to the best advantage to resist all the means known to burglars for entering safes through their walls. Applicant's present application has already been held, on appeal to the Commissioner, to be so different from his former application that it could not be regarded as a renewal of the former application. As applicant's claim is a limited one, covering a special construction not shown before, and apparently well calculated to subserve the end sought, I think it may properly be allowed, and the decision of the board is therefore overruled.