The prior art references are: Dehn (Br.), 289,684, May 3, 1928. Mogford et al., 1,899,347, February 28, 1933. Appellant describes his invention in the following language: *** Each of the two substantially identical channel members is forged from a sheet metal blank of uniform thickness, the first operation being to form the blank into the rectangular channel shape, and the next operation being to stove the channel at least at its end portions, which redistributes metal from the channel walls into the squared corners that become thicker than the walls and contain densified compacted metal. During the stoving operation the channel is confined in a square cornered die assembly with its upper side edges exposed to pressure from a coacting die that pushes down on the channel side walls and forces the channel into the shape of the die. This term "stoved" was deliberately chosen to define the structure of the beam corners since it accurately recites the structure resulting from the only manner known to applicant of obtaining his special thickened compacted metal corners. During these operations the proper beam length is maintained and the longitudinal side wall edges are maintained straight, so that in mass production any two forged channel members may be welded together along those straight lines, the finished structure being a unitary hollow beam. * * * It is alleged by appellant that the result is "a new construction which is not disclosed in the prior art, which is lighter in weight but provides equivalent strength with attendant savings in the metal and cost of manufacturing, and which is particularly adapted to modern vehicles and manufacturing methods." While it is clear that invention is present in the six claims allowed by the Patent Office, the dispute below, as well as here, is whether the limitations disclosed in claim 17 are already met by the prior art. The claim was rejected by both the examiner and the Board of Appeals on the references cited above, although the board was of the opinion that it could properly have been rejected on the Dehn patent alone. The issue before us is whether the Patent Office erred, as contended by appellant, in rejecting the involved claim on the references cited. The patent to Mogford et al. relates to a tubular axle which is first fashioned as a straight axle beam and subsequently converted into a bowed shape. corners. The patent to Dehn likewise relates to tubular axles and discloses a bowed beam of generally rectangular cross-section with thickened The beam is made with similar channels joined on the opposite sides. All of such construction reads on the involved claim. The examiner properly held that Dehn, in view of Mogford et al., clearly met the straight axle feature of appellant's structure. Appellant contends that the feature of side walls of substantially uniform thickness discloses a patentable feature over Dehn. The examiner was of the opinion that such feature was merely a change of shape or form which produced no new or unobvious result and that no invention was there present. Indeed, from our interpretation of the drawings in the Dehn patent, the walls of appellant's device are clearly disclosed by that reference. Another feature stressed by appellant is the "stoved" and thickened corners of his axle. The examiner held that such a feature would not patentably distinguish from the corners of the Dehn structure, and that the limitation expressed in the claim that appellant's corners are "stoved" was too broad to distinguish over the corners of Dehn. The board stated in that connection it was not "impressed with the limitation in the claim that the thickened square corners are obtained by a stoving action." The purpose of the thickened corners, as set out in the specification, is to provide for spring seats "of adequate characteristics." It seems to us, as it did to the board, that since the Dehn device also has similar thickened corners that such corners have the same characteristics and are designed for the same function as the corners of appellant's axle. Even if the corners of the Dehn structure are made by a method different from the corners of appellant, it does not appear that appellant has obtained a new or unobvious result. Appellant further contends that his invention is particularly concerned with the production of channels made from sheet metal. Not only does the claim fail to mention the use of a particular metal but, as we read the Dehn patent, the same kind of metal can be employed in the production of that axle. Finally, appellant urges that the Dehn axle has solid ends as distinguished from the alleged "open-end" feature of his axle. We believe, as held by the examiner, that the instant claim contains no limitation which would differentiate over that feature of Dehn. The language in the claim that the side walls are of "substantially uniform thickness throughout the length of said beam" is, in our opinion, too broad to distinguish over that feature of Dehn. Since we believe the references used by the Patent Office were proper and that no patentable distinction is present between the claim and references, the decision of the board is affirmed. 678 O. G. 5; 41 CCPA 714; 206 F. (2d) 934; 99 USPQ 120 IN RE ZALKIND (No. 5981) PATENTS PARTICULAR PATENTS-EXPANDED SHEET Zalkind, Expanded Sheet and Method for Making Same, claim 20 of application refused. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, June 17, 1953 1 APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. 582,755 [Affirmed.] Albert M. Zalkind for appellant. E. L. Reynolds (Clarence W. Moore of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument May 13, 1953, by Mr. Zalkind and Mr. Moore] Before O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON (retired), Associate Judges WORLEY, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Philip Zalkind appeals here from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner in finally rejecting claim 20 in appellant's application for a patent for "Expanded Sheet and Method for Making Same." In rejecting the claim, the tribunals of the Patent Office held the limitations disclosed therein to be unpatentable over the prior art, and also as being ambiguous and inaccurate. Five claims were allowed. The rejected claim reads as follows: 20. A method of forming an expanded sheet comprising the steps of making a plurality of rows of spaced slits therein, slits in each row being staggered with respect to slits in adjacent rows; and locally compressing the material at the ends of each slit wherein said compressed areas are in alignment with respective slits and spaced from adjacent slits, to angularly diverge the sides of said slits at each end thereby, whereby substantially diamond-shaped openings are effected. The cited prior art is: Doran, 964,624, July 19, 1910. Connell, 1,733,778, October 29, 1929. Dougherty et al., 1,759,481, May 20, 1930. Balfe, 2,011,563, August 20, 1935. In describing his invention, appellant states The invention is in a method of expanding sheet material by slitting the sheet in such a manner that the slits appear in rows, the slits in each row being in alignment, and being staggered with respect to the slits in adjacent rows. * * * There are intermittent areas of unslitted material joining the ends of aligned slits, which areas are bounded by the slits of the adjoining rows. The appellant's method of expanding the sheet is by compressing these intermittent areas. A slitted sheet per se, * * * is generally conventional and may be expanded by various stretching and pulling methods and means heretofore known in the art. The appellant's method of forming the expanded sheet is novel and based on the discovery that if pressure be applied in the area at the ends of the aligned slits, *** the sides of the slits diverge bodily, *** and the sheet is thus expanded. 1 Released October 7, 1953. Various modifications of the basic concept of merely compressing the localized areas such as by providing hollow or solid blister formations in these areas *** are described in the application. The claims allowed by the Examiner and by the Board of Appeals are all limited to the use of some type of blister or formation in the area to be compressed. *** Appellant adds that "Claim 20 is not thus limited to the use of raised formations but covers the basic concept for the method of forming an expanded sheet by merely applying localized pressure at the ends of the slits * **"" Appellant further states that his invention is not restricted by its terms to sheet metal but can also be applied to sheets of other compositions, including fibrous material. The patent to Dougherty et al., on which the board seems to have relied principally in affirming the decision of the examiner, relates to a method of making an expanded sheet by providing a blank with raised formations, slitting the blank in aligned, parallel, staggered rows, and compressing the raised formations to expand the sheets. The patent to Cumfer teaches a method of making an expanded fibrous sheet by providing a plurality of spaced slits and then compressing the blank locally at the ends of the slits in order to expand the sheet. The examiner held that claim 20 differed from the method as taught by Dougherty et al. only in two functional recitations of results; viz, "wherein the compressed areas are spaced from adjacent slits" and "whereby substantially diamond-shaped openings are effected," and observed further that in the absence of a positive recitation of a patentably novel method step or steps, mere functional statements of result cannot be relied upon to predicate patentability. He also observed that no invention was involved by eliminating compression of the sheet at the points between the ends of the adjacent slits of Dougherty et al. because Cumfer taught that step to be old, and also because such a substitution would not affect the result of the Dougherty et al. method. It was also his view that because the elongated compressed areas of Dougherty et al. served the same function as that provided by the compressed areas recited in the instant claim, the compression as taught by Dougherty et al. was fully equivalent to that recited in the involved claim. In affirming the decision of the examiner, the board stated We are constrained to agree with the Primary Examiner that the positive steps, recited in the claim, are taught by Dougherty et al. With respect to the steps, that the material is compressed at the ends of the slits, the method, as recited, does not preclude compressing the material at locations other than at the ends of the slits. Furthermore, we are of the opinion, that even if the method recited in the claim was limited to compressing the material only at the ends of the slits, it would not patentably differentiate over the procedure disclosed by Dougherty et al., in view of the fact that they appear to obtain substantially the same results as appellant obtains by his method. We are not impressed with appellant's inference that the Dougherty et al patent is directed to nonanalogous art. Both Dougherty et al and appellant disclose using their methods in the metal working art. However, even if appellant's inference was correct, we still could not ignore the Dougherty et al disclosure in view of the rule by the Court in In re O'Connor, 34 C. C. P. A. 1055; 73 USPQ 433 that: "there is no invention in method claimed in one art if it were within exercise of skill of worker in that art to make use of method in nonanalogous art”, as we are of the opinion that any skilled artisan could apply the Dougherty et al method to sheet material, such as appellant uses. The rejection will be sustained. Claim 20 stands further rejected as being ambiguous and inaccurate. (Italics quoted.) While we cannot say we are in complete agreement with the view of the board that the method as recited in the claim does not preclude compressing the metal at locations other than at the ends of the slits, we are in agreement with its conclusion that even if the method recited in the claim were actually limited to compressing the metal only at the ends thereof, it would not patentably differentiate over the procedure of Dougherty et al. because both methods obtain substantially the same results. Furthermore, the Cumfer reference shows that it is old to compress the blank to be expanded by pressure at the ends of the slits. We are likewise in accord with the board that the invention involved in Dougherty et al. is not in such a remote or nonanalogous field as to properly preclude its use as a reference. It seems clear that both Dougherty et al. and appellant use their methods in the metal working art, and appellant's reference to fibrous material is likewise met by the Cumfer patent. During the oral argument before us, we were impressed with the contentions advanced by appellant that claim 20 involved invention. However, a careful examination of the two principle references convinces us that the disclosures in those references are such that the claim cannot properly be held to involve exercise of the inventive faculty. For example, one of the claims in the Dougherty et al. patent, which appears to give broad patent protection, reads as follows: 27. A process for producing open-work in metals including the steps of providing a plurality of scored, weakened places in a blank, mechanically working the metal between weakened places to reduce the thickness of the metal to different degrees transversely of the direction of lengthening, thereby to elongate the metal between the weakened places to different degrees and thus develop the weakened places into openings. That claim may be compared with the involved claim and in its breadth be seen to include the limitations of appellant's claim 20. Dougherty et al. relate their invention "to the production of openwork in metal by providing slits or other restricted openings in the |