poses, each is an independent machine, and as such constitutes the subjectmatter for a separate application.

The same objection lies to the second and third claims. The construction of the grater is wholly independent of the slicer, as well as of the combination of the latter, or the sieve, with the rack and hopper.

What applicant may probably claim in one application is the construction of the rack and hopper, which enables him to use them in connection with either the slicer, grater, or sieve, and the combination of one of the latter devices with the two former. If a peculiar construction of the adjunct device is necessary to effect the combination with the main portion of the machine, it may also be claimed in the same application. This is the utmost liberality that can be shown applicant. In its present form, his claim clearly contains subject-matter for several applications. The decision of the examiner requiring amendment before further action is consequently affirmed.

If, however, the claim should be amended as suggested above, there would seem to be no objection to retaining all the figures of the drawing, and the description thereof in the body of the specification, unless other applications are to be made on this subject-matter.

MARSH vs. DODGE.

Interference.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES L. MARSH, FILED FEBRUARY 26, 1868, AND THE REISSUE PATENT OF JOHN A. DODGE, GRANTED MARCH 20, 1868. SUBJECT, REAPING

MACHINES.

(Decided November 21, 1872.)

Irregularities of practice commented upon.

The declaration of a new interference between the same parties, and relating to the same subject-matter, is governed by rules of law regulating new trials.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

Marsh patented a rake applied to a single-wheeled front-cut reaper in 1863, which, with some modifications, is presented in the present application and patent as applied to a two-wheeled rear-cut reaper, and certain combinations of parts to effect the adaptation are claimed as the inventions of the parties respectively. These parties were joined in an interference involving the same general device, which was decided on appeal to Judge Fisher, of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, in favor of Dodge, February 15, 1868. Now, the controversy is based

upon a division of the reissued patent obtained by Dodge upon that adjudication, and an application subsequently filed by Marsh. It presents great irregularity of practice. The interference was declared in February, 1871, in contravention, so far as appears from the record, of Rule 60, requiring special authorization from the Commissioner in person in cases of this kind. The Examiner of Interferences took notice of this error and dissolved the interference, holding, very properly, that in the absence of authority from the Commissioner in person to declare the interference the subject-matter involved must be regarded by him as res adjudicata. From this decision an appeal only lay to the Commissioner in person, under Rule 44. One was taken, however, to the board, who erroneously entertained and decided it. Had the Examiner of Interferences decided the case upon its merits, the board might then have properly presumed that the interference had been duly declared, and proceeded accordingly. But the interference having been dissolved by him their jurisdiction was wholly precluded, and their action is, therefore, entirely nugatory. The case is now presented here as if on its merits, on appeal from their decision. It cannot be so regarded, however. The only action in order is an appeal from the decision of the examiner to the Commissioner. As there has already been considerable delay in the case, the formality of returning it to the examiner, to be brought up on regular appeal upon the interlocutory question involved, will be dispensed with, and I will regard the appeal to the board as if to the Commissioner, and decide the issue thereby presented. I have no doubt the primary examiner declared the interference erroneously and without authority, as the subject-matter involved was unquestionably comprehended in the former interference between the parties. The Examiner of Interferences was, therefore, right in his action and must be sustained. The question whether the interference should be authorized or not by the Commissioner is not directly involved in this appeal, but I am disposed to consider all the aspects of the case now, and I have accordingly examined the evidence presented by Marsh, and while I find that it tends to confirm the correctness of the former Office decision in his favor, it does not, in my judgment, warrant the rehearing of the controversy which an interference upon the basis here laid would virtually be. The law governing the grant of new trials is applicable here just as it is in courts, and the practice of courts is not such as to sanction the rehearing now sought upon the evidence presented. Although this evidence might perhaps have had the force to alter the decision of the learned judge, yet there appears no sufficient reason, in fact no reason at all, why it should not have been put in the case originally, so as to have come before him. It is in no sense newly-discovered testimony-the occasion for it only, found in the adverse opinion of the court, is of that character.

The decision of the Examiner of Interferences is sustained.

JOSEPH L. PENNOCK.

Appeal.

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH L. PENNOCK, FILED OCTOBER 23, 1871, FOR PATENT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN ROLLING-MILLS.

(Decided November 22, 1872.)

Patentable novelty.

A broad claim refused because, in view of the state of the art, the scope of the invention actually extended only to the specific devices presented.

LEGGETT, Commissioner :

The object of applicant's invention is to convey a pile from the bed of a heating furnace to the rolls of a rolling-mill. He accomplishes it by means of power-driven hauling mechanism, which withdraws the heated pile from the furnace and deposits it on a platform of a crane that swings it round and delivers it to the rolls. It is shown by the examiner and illustrated in applicant's argument, that similar mechanism has been employed to drag the pile from the furnace onto a platform of a truck which delivers it to the rolls. Applicant has substituted a crane for the truck in this case. But, as is well known, cranes are in common use for conveying heated piles to be forged and rolled. In substituting a crane applicant has effected a saving, and in the details of his device has exhibited invention. It is not, however, of a very comprehensive character, in view of the references, and I think does not justify a claim so broad as the one' under consideration. It is, in my opinion, fully comprehended in the second claim, which has been allowed. This claim is more specific in terms and limited in scope, and I think is all that is warranted by what applicant has done. The claim sought would, if valid, give a monopoly of the combination of hauling-mechanism and a crane for transferring a pile in a rolling-mill, to produce which combination involved only the substitution of a crane for a truck, and, in view of the like use of cranes, does not amount to invention. I have no doubt the combination is legitimate, so far as the co-operation of the parts is concerned, but it only required the application of mechanical skill to produce it in the present state of the art. The decision of the board is affirmed.

JOHN L. MASON.

Extension.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHN L. MASON FOR EXTENSION OF PATENTS NO. 22,129, GRANTED NOVEMBER 23, 1858, AND NO. 22,186, GRANTED NOVEMBER 30, 1858, FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN BOTTLES AND BOTTLE-MOLDS, RESPECTIVELY.

(Decided November 25, 1872.)

An incomplete and practically inoperative device does not furnish sufficient ground for rejecting the product of an operative one, though the two devices may have some features in common.

Extension granted upon the filing of a disclaimer.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The applications under consideration being, from the nature of the devices covered by the respective patents, intimately connected, have been presented and heard together, and will be so decided. The limited period between the hearing and the date of expiration of one of the patents prevents as full a discussion of the cases as their importance, and the ability and zeal with which they have been contested by the respective counsel, demand; but it has not prevented a careful consideration of the numerous points involved.

Patent No. 22,129 covers certain improvements in molds for blowing screw-necked bottles, which consist of two hinged parts or jaws and a bed or base-plate. When the jaws are closed the glass is blown through an orifice at the top and forms a bottle on the interior surface of the mold. The screw upon the neck portion of the mold is of peculiar formation, having V-shaped recesses, each provided with an air-vent between its projections, and its thread "vanishing" at its ends into the surface of the mold. There is a rim above and below it, and a “blowover" above the neck portion surrounded by a flange. This mold forms the screw-necked bottle which embraces the subject-matter of patent No. 22,186. It is obvious that a bottle blown in such a mold would have a "vanishing" screw-thread upon its neck between two plain portions above and below, the latter forming a groove between the screwthread and the shoulder of the jar adapted to receive a rubber gasket. The third and fourth claims of patent No. 22,129, covering the blowover and its flange, are, in my opinion, perfectly anticipated by the French patent of Yssartier of November 5, 1855, and must be disclaimed. The drawing of this patent shows an elevation of one-half of a mold and blow-over, inclosing one-half of a bottle exhibited in vertical crosssection. I do not regard the evidence introduced to prove that the date of Mason's invention was prior to this patent as sufficient for that purpose. In his sworn statement he deliberately declared the date to be

1856, and his contradiction bears obvious marks of prevarication, and was plainly enough induced by the discovery of Yssartier's patent.

It has already appeared before the Office in other instances that the obligation of an oath rests very loosely upon him in matters where the truth conflicts with what he supposes to be his interest. The rather hesitating corroboration of this after-thought by his witness is altogether too weak under the circumstances to induce rational belief. The first and second claims of this patent are as follows:

The combination of the screw-thread with the rim f', and also its combination with the rim, for the purposes herein set forth.

The combination of the grooves in the female screw of the mold with the air-passages through the mold, for the purposes set forth.

The novelty and ntility of the subject-matter of the second claim are unquestionable. The first would seem to be precisely met by the English patent of Wilson, No. 808, of 1852, except that the screw-thread there shown is not such a "vanishing" thread as shown by Mason. I have hesitated somewhat in coming to the conclusion that there is a substantial difference between these screws, which are certainly both "vanishing" screws, but upon a very careful consideration of the matter I am of opinion that such a difference exists and is represented in the drawing and model. It is questionable to my mind whether the English patent referred to should be regarded as an answer to this claim in any event, because as shown and described it is extremely probable that it does not present a mold that could be successfully operated. It is not provided either with vents for the escape of air from the screwthreads or a blow-over, both of which, notwithstanding the testimony in behalf of the remonstrants, I believe to be quite essential, if not absolutely indispensable. For this reason I do not regard the novelty of the first claim of patent No. 22,186 as shaken by this patent, and all the other patents are clearly not in point.

As to novelty and utility none of the claims of either patent can justly be regarded as impeached, except the two anticipated by the French patent of Yssartier.

I am thoroughly satisfied of the great value and importance of Mason's inventions. Although he is not the foundation inventor, he is undoubtedly entitled to be regarded as the first, by means of his inventions, to render this branch of manufacture a practical success, and his remuneration ought justly to be considerable. I am inclined to look with suspicion upon his account of receipts, but it is in due form and is not invalidated by proof, and in view of the undoubted merit of his inventions I should not be justifiable in refusing the extensions.

They will accordingly be granted upon filing a disclaimer as above indicated.