80,107; Emsley, April 17, 1883, No. 276,012; Hamon, October 5, 1886, No. 350,303.

In support of the reasons given by the Examiner for holding the device inoperative the following publications are referred to: Strength of Materials, Thomas Box, London, E. & F. N. Spon, 1883, pp. 448 and 449; Steam Boilers, their Construction and Management, W. H. Shock, New York, Van Nostrand, 1880, sec. 13, p. 351; Appleton's Dictionary of Mechanics, New York, D. Appleton & Co., article, "Boring Mills;" Natural Philosophy, D. Olmsted, New York, Collins & Bro., 1849, pp. 123, 128, and sec. 19; Encyclopedia Britannica, Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1875, article, "Aeronautics;" Mechanic's Almanack, 1880-1885, Calvert, London, J. Heywood, 1886, p. 39, Fig. 9, p. 41; History and Practice of Aeronautics, J. Wise, Philadelphia, Joseph A. Speel, 1850. The claims are as follows:

1. An air-ship comprising, in combination, a hollow metallic body and a pneumatic pump or pneumatic pumps for producing a vacuum therein, whereby the ship may be caused to rise, substantially as described.

2. An air-ship comprising, in combination, a hollow metallic body, a pneumatic pamp or pneumatic pumps for producing a vacuum therein, and a car attached to the hollow metallic body, substantially as described.

3. In an air-ship, a metallic cylinder constructed substantially as described, provided with a pneumatic pump or pneumatic pumps and pointed or cone-shaped ends, substantially as described.

4. In an air-ship, a metallic cylinder provided with a pueumatic pump or pneumatic pumps, pointed or cone-shaped ends, and electrical apparatus for operating the same, substantially as described.

5. In an air-ship, a metallic cylinder provided with a pneumatic pump or pneumatic pumps, pointed or cone-shaped ends, and a spring-support for the points, substantially as described.

The first claim defines nothing but an air pump, viz, a hollow metallic body and a pneumatic pump or pumps for producing a vacuum therein. The fact that it is called an "air-ship," and that by creating a vacuum in the metallic body the ship may be caused to rise, are mere statements of results and not of construction. The same statement may be made of the third claim, except that the air-pump is constructed with coneshaped ends; but it would be none the less an ordinary air-pump.

Applicant's conception is that a vessel constructed of metal of suf ficient dimensions and with the atmosphere exhausted may possess a sufficient degree of levitation by means of displacement to float in the atmosphere. The construction and relation are precisely identical with those of the submarine diving-boats, from which the water is either pumped or originally excluded, and the levitation controlled by the admission of more or less water or its expulsion, the only difference between the two being that in the one case the atmosphere is pumped out or allowed in as the aeronaut desires to rise or descend, while in the other the water is pumped out or allowed ingress as the navigator desires to rise or descend in the water.

The patent to Abruzzo clearly shows an air-ship consisting of a hol

low metallic body and pumps by which the metallic body may be exhausted, and having a car attached to the said body-in other words, all the elements called for in the first two claims of applicant. In Abruzzo's cylinder there appears only one end cone-shaped, while in applicant's third claim both ends are cone-shaped; but it is obvious, as suggested by the Examiner, that there is no invention in making the second end of the vessel of the same shape as the first.

Claim 4, covering a combination the same as the previous claims, with the addition of an operating apparatus, is also anticipated by Abruzzo, and the fact that applicant operates his apparatus with electrical force or machinery gives it no patentability over and above what is disclosed by Abruzzo.

In claim 5 is found the device of a spring-buffer at the extreme point of the cone-shaped end. Spring-buffers are shown in the reference, differently located, it is true; but undoubtedly a mere change in the position of the buffer to a location where it is thought to be more desirable or useful involves no invention.

Applicant proposes to build an air ship in cylindrical form which he prefers to make about 414 feet long and about 141 feet in diameter, with a cone and prow 120 feet long at each end. The length over all is therefore 654 feet. This vessel is constructed of steel plates one fortyfourth of an inch thick, riveted together and to steel ribs inside. These ribs are placed about 9 feet apart, and are one and one-fourth inch wide by one-eighth of an inch in thickness. This vessel is not to be 'inflated like an ordinary balloon, but is to be exhausted of air until it becomes buoyant enough to support the vessel itself and its attachments, consisting of a car for its load, propelling and steering machinery, and pumps for exhausting the vessel as necessity may require. In addition to these light ribs there are interior supports and compartments, and the ribs are particularly set forth as intended to prevent collapse. Applicant has gone into elaborate computations as to the weight of such a cylinder and its appurtenances to show its buoyancy and sustaining power under ordinary atmospheric conditions.

The Examiner has denied both the novelty and utility of the alleged invention, and has been fully sustained by the Examiners in Chief. There is nothing in any of the claims that is not fully met in the references cited, in which are found the vessel of the same shape as applicant's, pumps for exhausting the air therein, and propellers worked by an electric motor. The idea of using a metallic vessel exhausted so as to be buoyant in the atmosphere is shown to be over two centuries old, so that it appears that there is not a single novel idea embraced in the claims presented.

But apart from these references the Examiner has given unusual attention to the reasoning by which applicant attempts to support his hypothesis. His answer to the reasons of appeal demonstrates the fal lacies of applicant's argument, and, in our present knowledge of natural

laws, is to my mind unanswerable.

He observes that in structures

showing some analogies to that proposed an enormous internal bracing has been found necessary in order to enable them to resist a much slighter comparative outside pressure than that upon applicant's cylinder. Such structures are the outcome of the highest engineering skill of the day. They have been planned with careful regard to the tested strength of materials and proportion of parts, and are employed under conditions of stability as remote as can be conceived from those of applicant's cylinder. The force of such illustrations is not to be overcome by closet theorists nor by mathematical computations, however minute, that ignore established natural laws. The record shows no attempt to overcome such objections. The legitimate and unavoidable conclusion reached by the Examiner is that to enable the structure to sustain its weight, even prior to the exhaustion of air, it must be supported by enormous bracing, such as is seen in the iron roof of a railway depot or the hull of an ocean steamer. Such bracing by its weight must overcome all the buoyancy the cylinder can derive from the exhaustion of air from its interior, and without such bracing its collapse (even supposing it is built) is as inevitable as the laws of nature. It can not be built; but supposing the difficulties of building it were overcome, it would be incapable of use. Under the circumstances, even if novelty were admitted, it must be held that a patent must be refused, at least until applicant practically demonstrates the operativeness of his device. The patent system was never designed to protect the chimerical schemes of visionaries. Invention consists in more than the work of the imagination. Applicant has only carried his conception up to the point where invention must begin. To conceive of a scheme of vast dimensions is the work of a dreamer; to make the mathematical computations requires only the ordinary knowledge of the student; to face the difficulties of construction and devise means to overcome them is the true work of the inventor, and it is in these means that the invention must consist, where others in the same field have failed.

It is not true that one who simply conceives an invention may obtain a patent if he has never completed such invention or demonstrated beyond a doubt that it is capable of successful operation. (Gardner v. Dudley, C. D., 1880, 123.)

An imperfect and incomplete invention, resting in mere theory or in intellectual motion, or in uncertain experiments, and not actually reduced to practice and embodied in some distinct machinery, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter, is not patentable. (Draper v. Potomska Mills Corp., 13 O. G., 276.)

Patents are granted only for inventions which possess novelty and utility. The last consideration is rarely raised, since it is generally held that unless a device is actually harmful in some way its utility need not be questioned. But this does not cover the whole ground.

Whether an invention is useful in the sense of the patent laws is not whether it is mischievous or hurtful or frivolous or insignificant, but whether it is capable of use for a purpose from which some advantage may be derived. (Crouch v. Speer, 6 0. G., 187.)

To constitute utility, it must be a practical method of doing the thing designed. (Roberts v. Ward, 4 McL., 565.)

The Office is bound to raise the question of utility in cases in which known laws and established principles are disregarded.

When, as in this case, the universal law of gravitation must be ignored in one portion and doubled in another in order to make the device operative, the question as to whether it is "sufficiently useful and important" is pertinent. (Ex parte Smith, C. D., 1873, 139.)

When the question of operativeness is raised in cases of this character it is not to be resolved by ex parte statements or by theoretical argument. The applicant must overbalance the opposing reasons in the judgment of the tribunals having jurisdiction of the case.

These reasons may be suggested by the laws of nature or by the testimony of witnesses. In case of evident conflict between the two the former must of course prevail. (Ex parte Winterlich, C. D., 1879, 240.)

The Office is particularly bound to take notice of the question of utility, because the law does not authorize the grant of patents except for useful inventions, and the fact of a grant is an assurance to the public of the conclusions of the Office in this respect as well as in respect to novelty.

The patent is prima facie evidence of utility. (Vance v. Campbell, 1 Fisher, 483; Wayne v. Holmes, 1 Bond, 27; Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361; Tilghman v. Werk, 1 Bond, 511.)

The Office can not be too careful on this point. Cases are not unknown where patents have been secured by a technical compliance with Office requirements, and then used simply to impose on a public not disposed to scrutinize closely the merits of a matter upon which the Patent Office has set the seal of its approval.

The present case deals with ideas long exploded and proposes not a single step in advance of what has long been known. It differs from former schemes only in its gigantic proportions. This cylinder is to be as long as the Capitol, and its diameter equals the width of one of our great avenues. These dimensions may seem to the visionary to demonstrate the greatness of applicant's conception; but it is great in no other respect. Applicant has not only struck out no new track, but confesses that there has been no attempt even at reduction to practice. I am aware that it is settled by the authorities in the Office that when there is a reasonable doubt as to the utility of an invention it is to be resolved in favor of the applicant. That rule may be applicable either when applicant has made no attempt to reduce to practice, but relies upon a statement and description of his invention, or when he claims that he has substantially reduced it to practice; but in either event it must be a matter of reasonable doubt.

In this case I am not satisfied that there is even a doubt. Indeed, the opinion of all the experts in the Office who by education and experience are qualified and competent to give this subject careful and scientific investigation is unanimous that it is wholly impracticable and impossible to construct such an air-ship.

The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is therefore affirmed.

EX PARTE WEEKS.

Decided June 15, 1888.

43 O. G., 1585.

COMBINATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ADAPTATION.

Claims for combinations distinguished from claims covering elements having a specific construction and arranged in such peculiar relation as to be adapted to use with each other. While it can not be doubted that it is the better practice in all cases of novel combination to express the claim in combination form, it sometimes occurs that an invention is of such peculiar character as to render such a claim unimportant.

ON PETITION.

ACCELERATING GUNS AND CARTRIDGES.

APPLICATION of Asa Weeks, filed March 29, 1883, No. 89,826.

Mr. Wallace A. Bartlett for the applicant.

HALL, Commissioner:

This case comes before the Commissioner on appeal from the action of the Examiner requiring division. The application contains nine claims, three of which cover the piece of ordnance having a peculiar construction in that it possesses one or more small grooves or short rifles in that portion of the bore where the charge is located. The remaining six claims cover a cartridge which is constructed in sections so arranged that when the rear section is exploded the remaining sections are consecutively exploded by means of the flash-flame of the explosion reaching them through the grooves or rifles as the charge advances toward the muzzle of the gun.

A minute or specific description of the invention is not required. It is clear that the flash groove or rifle of the gun has no purpose or function other than to assist in the successive explosion of the sections of the cartridge, and the cartridge as constructed could not be exploded in the manner described in a gun so constructed except by means of the flash-grooves.

The Examiner required division between the three claims covering the gun and the six claims covering the cartridge. The committee on division were divided in opinion, two of them approving the action of the Examiner and the third member dissenting from such approval.

The relation between a cartridge and the gun or engine in which it is discharged is a somewhat peculiar one, and this peculiar relation probably called the attention of the committee on division to the ninth claim, with a view of determining whether it was a claim for a combination between the gun and the cartridge. The dissenting member of the committee was inclined to hold that it was a combination claim, but I am not able to concur in that view, and do not think it is capable of