appears on the specimen wrappers filed with the application, they are associated with the words "Tailored for Toast" or "Delicious Toasted", are merely descriptive of the intended purpose and function of the wrappers, to wit, to contain or to enclose bread suitable for breakfast, for instance, toastable bread; and the mark is not registrable for the wrappers for that reason. Walgreen Co. v. Godefroy Manufacturing Co., 22 C. C. P. A. 818, 454 O. G. 530, 74 Fed. (2d) 127. Ex parte Viking Refrigerators, Inc., 532 O. G. 776, 163 Ms. D. 835, 51 USPQ 142, It is contended here by counsel for appellant that appellant does not sell its goods to the retail trade, but only to manufacturers of bread; that "Appellant and its competitors have created a new industry which is an integral part of modern food selling"; that it and its competitors are rarely known to the retail merchant or to the general public; that its wrappers lose their identity as a separate commercial commodity when used by the bread manufacturer; and that, although appellant's customers (manufacturers of bread) "salvage" appellant's mark and use it to identify and describe their breakfast bread and although the mark as used may be descriptive of the contents of the wrapper so far as the purchaser of the bread is concerned, appellant is, nevertheless, entitled to register its mark. Counsel rely here largely on the decision in the case of Bayer Co., Inc. v. United Drug Co., 272 Fed. 505, wherein it was held, among other things, by the District Court for the Southern District of New York that the owner of a trade-mark might have the right to the exclusive use of such mark in sales to manufacturing chemists, physicians, and retail druggists, but would not be entitled to its exclusive use so far as the general public is concerned. [1] The decision in the Bayer Co. case, supra, is not of vital importance here as the question before us is not whether appellant is entitled to the registration of a trade-mark for use on its bread wrappers, but rather whether it is entitled to the registration of a trade-mark which is designed not merely to indicate origin of its wrappers but also to describe, as it does, the bread enclosed in such wrappers. Counsel for appellant frankly state in their supplemental brief that if appellant is entitled to the registration of its mark, the baker of bread who uses appellant's wrappers would be entitled to prevent other bakers from using the term "BREAKFAST BREAD" on wrappers or packages to describe their breakfast bread. Obviously, if appellant is entitled to register its mark "BREAKFAST BREAD" for use on wrappers designed to indicate to the purchasing public that the bread contained therein is breakfast bread, it would be entitled to use and register such terms as "luncheon bread," "tea bread," "dinner bread," "supper bread," and any other term which is descriptive of bread and of which it was the first user and thereby monopolize the entire field and prevent bread manufacturers other than its customers from using any of such descriptive terms on their bread or bread wrappers. It would seem to be too clear for argument that appellant's alleged trade-mark is, as stated by the commissioner, "merely descriptive of the intended purpose and function of the wrappers, to wit, to contain or to enclose bread suitable for breakfast," and is, therefore, merely descriptive of the character of appellant's goods. See Walgreen Co. v. Godefroy Manufacturing Co., 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 818, 74 F. (2d) 127, 24 USPQ 77; In re General Permanent Wave Corporation, etc., 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1099, 118 F. (2d) 1020, 49 USPQ 184. Counsel for appellant have presented many ingenious arguments in support of their contention that appellant's mark is registrable under the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905. Those arguments have been given the consideration they merit. We are of opinion, however, that, for the reasons hereinbefore stated, appellant is not entitled to the registration of its mark. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed. 574 O. G. 395; 32 C. C. P. A. 882; 147 F. (2d) 701; 64 USPQ 563 IN RE ARTER (No. 4962) I. PATENTS-APPEALS-ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED EX PARTE PATENT CASES Examiner rejected claim 15 on S or M in view of H or R; in affirming as to claim 15 and other claims, Board stated that S was not pertinent and that applicant did not contend that claim 15 was patentable apart from other claims; Board held that claims were unpatentable over D in view of M; applicant did not assign as reason of appeal to Court that Board erred in rejecting claim 15 on D and M in view of H or R, so claim 15 is not properly before Court and appeal is dismissed as to it. 2. APPEALS-ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED-EX PARTE PATENT CASES Board relied solely on D in view of M in holding that claims were unpatentable and stated that if M is not pertinent art claims cannot be rejected; it is unnecessary and improper for Court to consider other references of record relied on by examiner. 3. PATENTABILITY—ANTICIPATION-IN GENERAL To use gears disclosed in one patent in tool disclosed in another patent to produce structure defined by applicant's claims, it would be necessary to reconstruct device of second patent, and there is nothing in either patent to suggest how that might be done; claims are allowed. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, February 7, 1945 APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. 355,162 [Reversed.] A. D. Salinger and Charles E. Riordon (John H. McCready and H. L. Kirkpatrick of counsel) for appellant. W. W. Cochran for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument January 9, 1945, by Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Cochran] Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, JACKSON, and O'CONNELL Associate Judges HATFIELD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims (Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive) in appellant's application for a patent for an alleged invention relating to improvements in work support adjusting mechanism for machine. tools. Claims 10, 15, and 17 are illustrative of the appealed claims. They read: 10. In a machine tool, the combination with a work support, a tool for operating on the work, and means for guiding said support for adjusting movement relatively to said tool, of a screw operatively connected with said support for movement therewith but rotatable relatively to said support, a nut into which said screw is threaded, and two irreversible mechanisms connected with said screw and said nut, respectively, for revolving them independently of each other. 15. In a machine tool, the combination with a work support, a tool for operating on the work, means for guiding said support for adjusting movement relatively to said tool, of a screw operatively connected with said support for movement therewith but rotatable relatively to said support, a nut into which said screw is threaded, two irreversible worm and gear mechanisms connected, respectively, with said nut and said screw, a manually operable device connected with one of said mechanisms to revolve the worm element thereof, a motor connected with the worm of the other of said mechanisms to revolve it, and means operated by the movement of said support to stop the drive of the latter worm by said motor when a predetermined adjusting movement of the work support has been made. 17. In a machine tool, the combination with a chuck for supporting the work, a slide supporting said chuck and means for guiding said slide for vertical adjusting movement of an upright screw operatively connected with said slide to adjust it, a nut into which said screw is threaded, worm gears positioned one above the other and secured to said nut and screw, respectively, for rotation therewith, two worms in driving engagement with said respective worm gears, each of said worm and worm gear combinations constituting an irreversible drive, the upper of said worm gears being mounted on said slide for vertical movement in unison therewith, a hand wheel connected with the worm for operating said upper gear to revolve the worm, a motor connected with the lower of said worms to drive it, and a bearing supporting said nut against the thrust of said screw and the load which is carries. The references are: Filstrup, 811,835, February 6, 1906; Rockwell, 1,491,922, April 29, 1924; Schramm et al., 1.634,386, July 5, 1927; Huxford et al., 1,866,212, July 5, 1932; Miller, 1,966,209, July 10, 1934. Appellant's device comprises in combination a work-supporting table, a grinding wheel arranged directly above the table, and mechanism for raising and lowering the table with relation to the grinding tool. The table is mounted for movement in a vertical direction. The alleged invention relates particularly to power operating means for adjusting the work-supporting table so that the article to be worked upon may be brought initially into proper contact with the grinding tool, and manually operable means for intermittently adjusting the table in relation to the grinding tool during the operation of the device. In describing appellant's device, the Primary Examiner said: * The mechanism for adjusting the position of the table includes a vertically arranged screw arranged to operate as a post supporting the table. One end of the screw is journaled in a bearing carried by a casting on which the table is mounted while the other and lower end of the screw is supported in a rotatably mounted nut journaled in a bearing supported on a base forming a portion of the main frame of the machine. The screw may be moved endwise through the nut by rotating the screw by worm wheel and worm gearing secured to the upper end of the screw and actuated [manually] by a hand wheel, or by other worm and worm wheel gearing [at the lower end of the screw] transmitting power from a motor to the nut to rotate the nut. (Italics not quoted.) It appears from appellant's application that the worm wheel and worm gear secured to the upper end of the screw and the worm and worm gear at the lower end of the screw secured to the rotatable nut form irreversible mechanisms for the revolving screw and the rotatable nut, respectively. When the screw is rotated by the worm gear and worm connected at the upper end thereof, the worm and worm gear at the lower end of the screw lock the rotatable nut against rotation with the screw. However, when the rotatable nut is rotated by the worm gear and worm at the lower end of the screw, the worm and worm gear at its upper end lock the screw against rotation with the rotatable nut. The rotation of either the screw or the nut raises or lowers the screw and through it the work support. By appellant's improved structure, the use of clutches or equivalent devices has been eliminated. The patent to Drake relates to a machine tool, specifically, as the patentee states, "Table Driving and Feeding Mechanism for GrindingMachines." In the Drake structure, the work support is adjustable vertically relative to the grinding tool. The patentee's adjusting mechanism comprises a non-rotatable screw, surrounded by an internally threaded sleeve which is operatively connected by standard reversible gears to a hand wheel whereby the threaded sleeve may be caused to rotate and move the non-rotatable screw upwardly or downwardly so as to bring the work support initially into contact with the grinding tool. The patentee's adjusting means also includes a pawl and ratchet which are operated by "any suitable source of power" to adjust the work support intermittently in relation to the grinding tool during the grinding operation. The patentee does not disclose the use of power driven means for giving the work support its initial adjustment, but relies upon the manually operated wheel to accomplish that purpose. In the patentee's structure the screw is the only slidable part. The manually operated wheel and the shaft and gears operated thereby are fixedly mounted in the frame of the device, instead of being mounted on the work support as in appellant's device. The patent to Miller relates to valve operating mechanism and discloses irreversible gear mechanism for operating valves for oil pipes, steam pipes, water pipes, or other distributing means. In the patentee's structure the valve may be opened and closed either by hand or by power from an electric motor. As stated by the Primary Examiner, Miller discloses irreversible gears "for the movement of a screw end wise by rotating either the screw or a nut on the screw.' All of the appealed claims, except claim 15, were rejected by the Primary Examiner on the patent to Drake in view of either the patent to Schramm et al. or the patent to Miller. Claims 10, 11, and 12 were also rejected by the examiner on the disclosure in the Schramm et al. patent. Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 were further rejected by the examiner on the patents to Filstrup and Lutz in view of either the Schramm et al. or Miller patents. Claim 15 was rejected by the examiner as defining nothing patentable over the patents to Schramm or Miller in view of the patents to Huxford et al. or Rockwell. The Huxford et al. and Rockwell patents were cited for the purpose of showing that the automatic stop means, called for by claim 15, were old as disclosed in those patents. In affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner, the Board of Appeals stated that the patent to Schramm et al. was not pertinent in that the patentees disclosed the use of spiral gears and auxiliary means to control back lash; that the patents to Filstrup and Lutz were merely cumulative and "need not be considered since if Miller is not pertinent art the claims cannot be properly rejected"; and that counsel for appellant did not contend that claim 15 was patentable "apart from the other claims." The board held that the patent to Miller was analogous art "since it is quite clear that Miller relates to irreversible means for driving either a screw or nut respectively for raising and lowering a valve," and stated that the fact that that patent was classified in the Patent Office in a class different from that of the Drake patent and appellant's device was no reason for considering it non-analogous art. The board further held that the appealed claims were unpatentable over the disclosure in the Drake patent in view of the disclosure in the |