The claims were all disallowed, among other reasons, on the ground that they were unpatentable over the art of record. The main ground of rejection, however, in this case resides in the concurring decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office to the effect that the limitation relating to the ball centering means being equally spaced from the valve seats, recited in each of the respective claims, is new matter, not presented in the original specification, and not clearly shown in the drawing. The primary issue was thus summarized and approved by the board to the following effect: Claims 24 through 27 stand rejected as being directed to new matter. It is the Examiner's position that these claims all include the following: "said ball stop head portions being equally spaced with respect to their associated valve seats to receive the balls when they are unseated from their valves by connecting the body members," which appears in lines 29 to 32 of claim 24, or equivalent language therein, and that there is no basis for such a recitation anywhere in the original disclosure. Appellant states that this structure is supported by his original drawing and has filed an oath under the provisions of Rule 67, in order to support his contention and has also amended the specification to include this subject matter. His contention is that the drawing constitutes a disclosure of the subject matter and that under prevailing decisions, he is entitled to amend the specification in accordance with the disclosure of the drawing to support his position. [1] The patent laws provide that in the prosecution of an application for a patent, no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. 35 U. S. C. (1952) § 132. The board correctly held, however, that it is proper in support of claims which otherwise could not be allowed, to amend the specification of a pending application to include new matter clearly and conclusively disclosed by the drawings. Bloodhart v. Levernier, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 917, 64 F. (2d) 367, 17 U. S. Pat. Q. 188; Wiemer v. Coe, Comr. Pats., 45 USPQ 407. Where the drawings fail to meet that requirement, the Patent Office will not receive an affidavit, such as was submitted in the case at bar, for the purpose of curing defects in the drawings or establishing facts which the specification should have recited when it was originally filed as part of appellant's application. In re Smyth, 38 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1130, 189 F. (2d) 982, 90 USPQ 106. [2] Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability. In re Kinderman, 37 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 800, 178 F. (2d) 937; 84 USPQ 242. See also In re Betz, 35 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1033, 166 F. (2d) 831, 77 USPQ 162; Wasberg v. Ditchfield, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1099, 155 F. (2d) 408, 69 USPQ 538. Accordingly, the board in refusing to accept appellant's affidavit and the proposed amendments of his specification properly held: [3] The statement as to the particular spatial relationship between the parts included in these claims, which is objected to by the Examiner, is not clearly shown in the drawing and there is nothing in the drawing which definitely supports appellant's contention. It is well known that Patent Office drawings are not normally drawn to scale, with the dimensions and sizes of parts shown to exact measurements as are shop drawings. In the particular case under consideration, the distances and dimensions involved are of the order of a few thousandths of an inch and it appears obvious that the drawing alone cannot be scaled off, under these circumstances, to show that any particular distances or sizes are exactly equal when the specification is completely silent in this respect. For this reason, we do not consider that appellant's drawing supports the position he has taken in respect thereto and we will affirm the Examiner's rejection of these claims as drawn to new matter. [4] Under the patent statutes claims shall be allowed solely on condition that the applicant submits in his specification a written description of the invention in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make, construct, and use the same. 35 U. S. C. (1952) § 112. By compliance with this requirement, the progress of science and useful arts will be promoted. This is particularly effective following the expiration of the patent monopoly when the subject thereof reverts to the public domain. In re Shao Wen Yuan, 38 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 967, 188 F. (2d) 377, 89 USPQ 324; In re Beach, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 815, 152 F. (2d) 981, 68 USPQ 196. [5] The statutes make reward to an inventor and the owner of a patent a matter of secondary consideration. Nevertheless, Congress intended, during the life of a patent, that the owner thereof shall be endowed by such statutes with valuable, enforceable rights, together with commensurate rewards, on the theory that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 100 USPQ 325. The court is of the opinion that appellant has made a valuable contribution to the art here involved. Despite that fact, and the fact that the claimed device has met with prompt commercial success, the decision of the Board of Appeals, for the reasons hereinbefore stated, must be and hereby is affirmed. WORLEY, Judge, dissents. JACKSON, J., retired, sat for GARRETT, Chief Judge. 685 O. G. 236; 41 CCPA 875; 212 F. (2d) 594; 101 USPQ 393 PATENTS IN RE LAMBERT ET AL. (No. 6037) 1. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS-CLAIM DEFINES INVENTIONPATENTABILITY-ANTICIPATION-IN GENERAL-TESTS OF-IN GENERAL Patentability of claim is determined primarily in accordance with phraseology found therein, the claim measuring the invention and marking limits of grant, and when claim is fairly readable on prior art disclosures it must be rejected for failure to patentably distinguish itself over such prior art. 2. PATENTABILITY—ANTICIPATION-COMBINING REFERENCES-PROCESS In re Osplack, 93 USPQ 306, and In re Arbeit, 96 USPQ 397, hold that even if there is prior art apparatus that will perform claimed process, such a fact is not, in itself, proper basis for rejecting claims made to such process; this rule is based on sound proposition that presence of inventive concept is determined in light of whether claimed method was inventively unobvious despite existence of apparatus that would carry out method; it is proper to combine apparatus disclosures in discounting an alleged inventive method. 3. PATENTABILITY—AGGREGATION OR COMBINATION No invention is required to combine old steps into claimed method where no new or unobvious result is produced by such combination. 4. APPEALS TO COURT-ISSUES DETERMINED EX PARTE CASES Claims rejected as not reading on elected species are not before court with exception of claims which applicants assert do conform to elected species. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, March 23, 1954 APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. 603,728 [Affirmed.] Bauer and Seymour (John L. Seymour and N. Douglas Parker Jr., of counsel) for appellants E. L. Reynolds (S. W. Cochran of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument November 6, 1953, by Mr. Seymour and Mr. Cochran] Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY, and COLE, Associate Judges COLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The appellants herein seek a reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office which affirmed the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting all but one claim of appellants' patent application for certain allegedly inventive improvements relating to a method and tank furnace for the making of glass. Appealed claims 1, 3, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, and 34 are drawn to a method of glass manufacture while claims 17, 28, 30, and 31 are directed to a tank furnace apparatus. These claims were rejected as being unpatentable over the prior art of record as evidenced by the following: Drake, 1,759,228, May 20, 1930. McAlpine, 2,254,079, Aug. 26, 1941. Batchell, 2,294,373, Sept. 1, 1942. The remaining claims 2, 4-15 inclusive, 32 and 33, were rejected as not being readable on the elected species. Representative claims 1 and 17 read as follows: 1. Method of making glass in a tank type of furnace which comprises causing the glass, whilst still full of bubbles, to flow in a unidirectional shallow stream from the surface of the batch melting compartment, to a fining compartment, increasing the temperature of the glass during its passage from the melting compartment to the fining compartment, and in the fining compartment heating the upper portion of the glass so transferred to fine the glass by causing an electric current to flow across the fining compartment in the said upper portion of the glass, which fined glass is then allowed to settle in the fining compartment and is then withdrawn from the lower portion of the fining compartment into a working compartment, whereby unfined glass is prevented from reaching the working compartment. 17. Tank furnace for the manufacture of glass comprising a melting compartment, a fining compartment, a shallow channel constructed and arranged to lead from the surface of the glass in the melting compartment to the fining compartment, an electrode in the fining compartment constructed and arranged to be submerged and to heat the upper portion of the glass in the fining compartment, the channel being provided with a recess, deeper than the channel, in which at least another electrode is located to supply electric current to the glass flowing from the melting compartment to the fining compartment, the crown of the fining compartment being prolonged above the recess provided in the channel, a working compartment and a duct connecting the lower portion of the fining and working compartments. Preliminary to detailed discussion of the claims in controversy it is essential to note that the basic concept of a three compartment tank furnace is set forth in the claims, said compartments being respectively designated as the melting, fining (refining), and working compartments. The solid glass making materials, sometimes referred to as the "glass batch," are first introduced into the melting compartment wherein they are fused and reduced to a molten state. Subsequent to this phase of the operation, the melted glass flows along the furnace and passes into the fining compartment where it is "fined" by the application of additional heat at greater temperature so that impurities, such as bubbles, may be removed from the glass. Thereafter, the glass enters the working compartment for thorough cooling prior to actual use. The aforegoing broad characterization of the operation of a continuous type glass furnace is fundamental in the art. The principal objective of the claimed invention is to produce a more uniform glass product at less operational expense than heretofore accomplished by prior art processes or apparatus. In this respect, the essence of appellants' alleged contribution to the art lies in the particular method of heating the glass materials as they flow through the furnace, and more specifically relates to the application of heat to the molten glass during its passage from the melting to the refining compartments. In its opinion, the Board of Appeals concisely summarized the subject matter of appellants' application as follows: The appealed claims are directed to a process of and a tank furnace structure for making glass wherein melted glass, whilst still full of bubbles, is transferred in a unidirectional shallow stream from the surface of a melting compartment to a fining compartment. In the fining compartment, the upper portion of the glass so transferred is rapidly heated by an electric current which flows across the fining compartment through the upper portion of the glass to cause the release of bubbles through a relatively thin upper layer and thus fine the glass. The fined glass settles in the fining compartment due to its increased density and is withdrawn from the lower portion of the fining compartment into a working compartment. For purposes of fuel economy, appellants contemplate operating the melting compartment at a somewhat reduced temperature but have found that glass entering the fining compartment at too low a temperature will be of relatively high density notwithstanding the contained bubbles and will settle substantially immediately to the lower part of the fining compartment instead of remaining at the upper part where it might be more readily refined. To prevent such a downstream, the temperature of the glass is increased while it passes from the melting compartment to the fining compartment, this being accomplished by the passage of an electric current through the aforementioned shallow stream of glass that flows from the surface of the melting compartment to the fining compartment. The step of increasing the temperature of the molten glass during the interval between its transfer from the surface of the melting compartment to the fining compartment, is of critical significance to the patentability of the claims in issue, and it is this vital feature, in particular, which is reputedly anticipated by the principal reference of record, Wadman 1,944,855. A two chamber tank furnace structure for the making of glass is shown in Figure 2 of Wadman 1,944,855, hereinafter referred to as Wadman '855. That structure is reproduced herewith. The principal chambers, designated by the numerals 10 and 11, are substantially separated from each other by a compartment 19. Rising from the floor of the tank to the glass level in chamber 10 is a baffle 21 which is positioned at the entrance to compartment 19. In chamber 11 is a bridge wall which extends almost to the bottom of |