These copies were objected to as not within the power of the Commissioner to grant for various reasons, and had the facts upon which these objections were based been proved other questions would have arisen which in the present state of the record do not properly arise. I must upon these certificates consider the evidence, and, there being no countervailing proofs, it is held that there was such a French patent granted as is recited in the certified copies.

The deposition of Lossier is in evidence and sufficiently connects him with the French patent. Cowles and Cowles have not established by the testimony of Alfred H. Cowles, the surviving brother, alone, without corroboration, that Cowles and Cowles had the conception of this improvement, as claimed, or at any time prior to the Lossier patent; nor is there corroboration, although Cowles testifies that there were witnesses whom he might have called upon this point. Notwithstanding the contention of the appellants, therefore, it is considered that Lossier has proved his French patent of April 17, 1883, and that neither the appellants Cowles and Cowles nor Boguski has proved a conception of the invention earlier than that date. It is held, too, that the invention of Lossier and that of Cowles and Cowles were substantially the same. The decision of the majority of the Examiners-in-Chief in awarding priority of invention to Lossier is therefore affirmed.

But the record appears to disclose by testimony taken in this interference, with counsel for Lossier present and cross-examining, that the invention was in public use in this country more than two years prior to the application of Lossier, and this with sufficient certainty to inform the Office for the purposes of this case and, prima facie, to bind Lossier. But since priority is the only question before the Office upon this record, Lossier is entitled to a further hearing upon this point, and in conformity with the established practice of the Office the application of Lossier is referred to the Primary Examiner for this purpose, and he will consider not only the record but such other testimony in behalf of Lossier as he may choose to submit within the time to be limited by the Examiner.

H conceived August 2, 1881. In January, 1884, he constructed an apparatus applying the conceived idea in the operation of a telephone, and November 9, 1887, filed an application, from which the application in interference was divided August 1, 1890. In August, 1890, the invention of the issue was operated upon a large scale by H. S filed his application November 4, 1886, and has taken no testimony, and no further facts appear concerning his testimony. Priority adjudicated in favor of H.

APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief.

DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY.

Application of Rudolph M. Hunter filed August 1, 1890, No. 360,619. Application of Thomas Spencer filed November 4, 1886, No. 217,950.

Mr. R. M. Hunter pro se.

Messrs. Pope, Read & Rogers for Spencer.

SEYMOUR, Commissioner:

This is an appeal taken by Hunter from the decision of the Examinersin-Chief awarding priority of invention to Spencer on the following issue:

The combination of a generator generating alternating electric currents with transformers for changing the current generated into a current of higher tension, and with mains for conveying this higher-tension current to other transformers at distant stations which reduce the current to a current of lower tension and with distributing-mains for conveying the reduced current to the places where it is to be

used.

As early as August 2, 1881, Hunter had the full conception of the combination of an electrical generator generating alternating electric currents with a transformer changing the current generated into a current of higher tension, with means for conveying this highertension current to another transformer farther away, which reduces the current to a current of lower tension, and with distributing-mains for conveying the reduced current to the places where it was to be used. In January, 1884, Hunter constructed an apparatus which consisted of a battery whose current and circuit were rapidly interrupted by an interrupter or rheotome and which traversed the coarse wire of an induction-coil. About this coarse-wire coil was wound the fine wire, in which a current of higher tension was induced and delivered by the fine wire to a second induction-coil, whose fine wire was included in the fine-wire circuit of the first. In the coarse-wire coil of the second induction-coil was generated a current of lower intensity. This apparatus was connected with a telephone-transmitter, and the quantity and tension of the currents employed were suitable for the operation of a telephone.

On November 9, 1887, Hunter filed his application for a patent, aud on August 1, 1890, divided therefrom the application in interference. In August, 1890, Hunter's invention was practically operated upon a considerable scale, in accordance with his instructions, at Lynn, Mass., in which was used an alternating-current generator of one hundred and four volts. The current was transformed by an induction-coil into a high-tension current of one thousand and eighty volts and sent over a line. The line current of one thousand and eighty volts was reconverted at two distant places by independent transformers into currents of fifty-two volts, each of which alternating low-tension currents was employed to energize incandescent lamps.

Spencer filed his application November 4, 1886, and has taken no testimony. No further facts appear concerning his invention.

This case has, by a consolidation of interests, ceased to be a contested one, and Spencer made no arguments before me.

Upon the showing made and upon the foregoing state of facts I am constrained to award priority to Hunter, and therefore the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is reversed.

HUNTER v. SPENCER.

1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY.

Decided April 27, 1895.

71 O. G., 1767.

Priority found for H upon facts recited in decision of March 2, 1895.

2. SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF ISSUE.

A battery with an interrupter in a telephone-circuit Held within an issue calling for a generator generating alternating electric currents for distribution of energy.

3. SAME-PAatentability.

The consideration of alleged anticipations in the patents of third parties and one of the parties to the interference refused in this proceeding and referred to the Primary Examiner, under the usual practice of the Office, approved by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in Peters v. Hisey, post, —; 71 O. G., 892.

ON REHEARING.

DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY.

Application of Rudolph M. Hunter filed August 1, 1890, No. 360,619. Application of Thomas Spencer filed November 4, 1886, No. 217,950.

Mr. R. M. Hunter pro se.

Messrs. Pope, Read & Rogers for Spencer.

SEYMOUR, Commissioner:

This is a rehearing of the Commissioner's decision dated March 2, 1895, reversing the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief and awarding priority of invention to Hunter on the following issue:

The combination of a generator generating alternating electric currents with transformers for changing the current generated into a current of higher tension, and with mains for conveying this higher-tension current to other transformers at distant stations which reduce the current to a current of lower tension and with distributing-mains for conveying the reduced current to the places where it is to be

used.

The rehearing was ordered in this case upon the request of Spencer out of abundant caution, lest, in the absence of counsel at the oral argument, something might have been omitted having a controlling force upon the decision. The facts, so far as disclosed by the record, have accordingly been carefully reviewed, and attention has been given to all the considerations urged by Spencer.

It was a part of the argument on behalf of Spencer that Hunter had conceived this improvement shown by Hunter's exhibit, Drawing No. 3, dated August 3, 1881, upon the date of that drawing; but it was urged that for more than six years and until the filing of his application on November 7, 1887, Hunter did nothing beyond forming the full conception of this improvement, reducing it to a drawing, and disclosing it to others.

Spencer filed his application more than a year earlier than Hunter, and were it true that Hunter did nothing more than conceive this improvement it would follow that he could not prevail in this interference for want of diligence in following up his early conception; but in 1884 Hunter constructed an apparatus consisting of a battery from the poles of which circuit-wires were led to the coarse wire of an inductioncoil and connected with them. This circuit was rapidly interrupted by an interrupter or rheotome. The fine wire of the induction-coil was connected at both ends with wires leading to a second induction-coil and there connected with its fine wire. The coarse wire of the second induction-coil was taken to a telephone-receiver. The first local circuit of this apparatus, including the interrupter, was also connected with a telephone-transmitter, currents were generated by the battery, and it followed that a current of higher tension was generated in the fine wire of the first induction-coil, transmitted thence to the fine wire of the second induction-coil, and there, in the coarse wire of the second induction-coil, an induced current arose of lower tension than that transmitted from the first induction-coil to the second. Here was, first, a generator of interrupted electric currents; second, a step-up transformer; third, lines; fourth, a step-down transformer; fifth, lines from the coarse-wire coil of the second induction-coil to a translating devicethe telephone-receiver.

But it is urged that this battery with the interrupter in its circuit was not strictly within the issue, because it was not a generator generating alternating electric currents; that this language is not in the least ambiguous; that it means exactly what it says, and that it does not mean a generator which does not generate an alternating current, even though that be one which generates one of alternately increasing and decreasing potential.

But since the effect of the current from the battery, rapidly made and broken by the interrupter, has the same effect upon the transformer as a generator generating alternating electric currents would have, and as this improvement is one for the transmission of electrical energy, of which the principal feature is the transmission of currents of high potential, transformed into such from currents of larger quantity but lower potential, to be transformed back again at a distant point to currents of lower potential but of greater quantity, it is thought that this interpretation of the issue is too restricted.

Further confirmation of this view is had from the history of this inter

ference, in which Hunter became involved upon claims not limited technically to a generator generating alternating electric currents in the meaning contended for by Spencer. I am constrained, therefore, to withhold assent from this argument of Spencer.

Again, it is urged by Spencer that if the issue is to be construed in this manner, so as to embrace non-alternating as well as alternating sources of electricity, then Hunter's apparatus is completely anticipated by the prior patent to Berliner, No. 199,141, dated January 15, 1878, for telephone apparatus, and the patent to Maiche, No. 243,454, dated June 28, 1881, for a telegraphic system. In the former we have a telephone with a battery in the primary circuit, an induction-coil with the coarse wire of which that circuit is connected, the fine wire of the coil led to a second induction-coil, the coarse wire of which is in circuit with a second battery and a second telephone. It is only by the vibration of the diaphragm of the telephone that a variable current is set up in the primary circuit of either coil, and no mechanical agency for producing the necessary vibration or of varying the resistance is shown. Maiche shows an apparatus with a rheotome attached to the second inductioncoil similar to that in the first, and it is not perceived that this intended induced current would be set up in the secondary coil of the second transformer. But it appears that both of these patents were before the Primary Examiner when he declared this interference, and in hold. ing this issue patentable and the Hunter claims to be involved in the interference it is thought that he gave no assent to the proposition that Hunter was anticipated by either of them. Without expressing or indicating any opinion upon the conclusion of the Examiner respecting the questions raised by either of these patents, the importance of the invention will suggest to him a review of the case upon these points, and, except to consider them for the purpose of construing this issue, they do not raise questions which are before me for decision. Those questions may properly take the course hereinafter indicated with respect to Hunter's patent, presently to be mentioned. So far as they have a bearing upon this case it is held that the invention defined in the issue was the invention of Hunter, conceived in 1881, and that what he did in 1884 completed it.

One other question is raised: whether Hunter is not now debarred from obtaining a patent for the subject-matter of the present interference by reason of having included it in a former patent, No. 460,071, dated September 22, 1891, for a method which embraces the necessary essential, and inevitable mode of operation of the identical mechanical construction now in controversy; but Hunter is entitled to the judg ment of the Primary Examiner upon this, and while it is a pertinent inquiry, in view of Miller v. The Eagle Manufacturing Company, decided by the Supreme Court January 8, 1894, (C. D., 1894, 147; 66 O. G., 845,) it is essentially an ex parte question, which, by the practice of the Office, approved by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in