The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals stated regarding these claims: "It will be noted that neither of these claims include the article of ring form about which the continuous strip is wound spirally and transversely as an element of the combination; that the combination composing the alleged wrapping is limited to the strip wound spirally and transversely and the strip applied adhesively thereto. It is evident that the wrapping cannot be made except on an annular structure or exist as a wrapping apart from the structure on which it is made. When made on an annular structure it becomes a part of it and can be removed only by being destroyed. It would seem, therefore, that as the alleged wrapping cannot be made apart from an annular structure and is of no use as a wrapping when severed from it, it is not, in and of itself, the subject of a patent, for in and of itself it is useless. If it could be made apart from an annular structure, it would still be useless, for it could not be applied as such to an annular article like a tire or coil of wire. We think these claims are invalid as claiming a distinct article, a wrapping, in as much as it cannot be manufactured or exist apart from the annular article on which it is made and of which it becomes a part. USELESS ARTICLES are not the subject of a patent. Also apart from the foregoing consideration, we are of the opinion that neither of these claims involve invention. At the time this patent was applied for, it had long been old in the art to wind a strip of paper spirally and transversely about an article of ring form by hand and by machine. It was also old, extending back beyond the memory of man, to apply an adhesive strip of paper to other strips for the purpose of holding them together in fixed relation."

The wrapping device covered by the claims involved, of patent 1,263,923, was held to involve only the exercise of mechanical skill over the Stevens patent, No. 1,196,044.

The claims involved of patents 1,158,278, 1,238,318 and 1,432,034, were held not to be infringed.

S. C.

EXCELLA PATTERN CO. v. McCALL Co. 5 F (2nd) 61 (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Jan. 5, 1925).

Claims 1 to 4 inclusive, of patent to Laub, 852,332, April 30, 1907, for identifying means common to sections of garment patterns, held invalid for want of invention.

The patent may be best explained by quoting claims 1 and 4, as follows:

Claim 1. In garment patterns, sections of the same, each having an identifying mark or symbol common to all the sections.

Claim 4. In garment patterns, sections of the same, each having an identifying mark or symbol common to all the sections and consisting of a number representing the "bust", "waist" or other measurement of the garment for which the pattern is intended, such number being employed as a key, in combination with the name of the part of the garment each pattern represents.

In brief, patentee's device consists of a pattern in which each piece has certain identifying matter, as "36, bust, cuff," indicating that the particular piece is the cuff of a garment with a 36 bust measurement. The back, sleeves, etc. etc., being similarly appropriately marked.

The court held that a combination to be valid must rest on some interdependence of the elements and that merely putting together two things, which are separately unpatentable is not invention. Here, both the pattern is old, and means and methods of marking different articles for identification are old, such means and methods being common to almost every industry, as in court records, lawyers' papers, etc., each paper will have thereon its particular character, the case to which it relates, the court in which pending, etc., all as a means of identifying the papers so that the proper ones may be kept together.

All that patentee's claims define amount to use of

the identifying method on patterns, and this is not invention. A. L. JACOBS, Div. 7.

OF GENERAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

Mr. Andrew K. Foulds, a junior patent examiner in Division 7, resigned August 24, 1925. Mr. Foulds, who was appointed September 11, 1922, has been examining Class 88, Optics. He has taken the degree of B. S. from Rutger's College, N. J., and the degree of LL. B. from Georgetown University. It is understood that he is going to practice patent law with his father in New York City.

Mr. Karl B. Lutz, an assistant examiner in Division 39, resigned August 19, 1925, to accept a position with the firm of Cox, Kent and Campbell, of New York City. Mr. Lutz was appointed August 20, 1920, from West Virginia. He is a graduate of Bethany College with the degrees of LL. B. and M. P. L. He has been examining Class 277, Multiple Valves.

Mr. Kenneth W. Boyd, an assistant examiner in Division 48, resigned August 19, 1925. Mr. Boyd was appointed Sept. 1, 1921, from the District of Columbia, and has been examining Class 175, General Applications for Electricity. He is leaving to enter the Air Service of the U. S. Army.

Mr. Samuel Goldstein, an assistant examiner in Division 8, resigned Sept. 5, 1925. Mr. Goldstein was appointed March 5, 1918, from New York, and has been examining Class 45, Tables. It is understood that he is going to New York City to practice patent law.

Mr. George L. Sachs, a junior examiner in Division. 44, resigned September 15, 1925. Mr. Sachs, who has been examining Classes 321 and 107, Dispensing and Bread, Pastry and Confection Making, was appointed July 8, 1924. Mr. Sachs will be located in Newark, N. J.

Mr. Miles H. Hamilton, a junior patent examiner in Division 40, resigned Sept. 15, 1925. Mr. Hamilton was appointed on June 7, 1924, and has been examining Class 206, Special Receptacles and Packages. He is going to the State University of Michigan at Ann Arbor to take a course in Aeronautics.

Mr. Norman E. Weeks, an assistant examiner in Division 3, resigned October 7, 1925. Mr. Weeks, who was appointed Dec. 28, 1920, has been examining Classes Nos. 75 and 266, Metalurgical Chemistry.

Mr. Robert L. Blair, a junior patent examiner in Div. 34, resigned Sept. 30, 1925. Mr. Blair was appointed Aug. 4, 1924, from New York, and has been examining Class 243, Pneumatic Dispatch, and 186, Store Service.

Mr. Isadore Seltzer, an assistant examiner of Division 31, resigned October 6, 1925. Mr. Seltzer, who was appointed July 6, 1922, from Connecticut, has been examining Class 196, Mineral Oils. He is a graduate of Yale University with the degree of Ph. B. and of Georgetown University with the degree of LL. B.

Mr. Milton Zucker, a junior patent examiner in Division 8, resigned August 31, 1925. Mr. Zucker, who was appointed January 1, 1925, from Ohio, was examining Classes 211 and 45, Store Furniture and Furniture. He is a graduate of the Case School of Applied Science, Cleveland, Ohio, with the degree of B. S. It is understood that he is going to Cleveland to engage in engineering work.

Mr. Alexander Bishoff, Associate Examiner in Div. 30, attended the Annual Convention of The Illuminating Engineering Society held September 15 to 18 at Detroit, Michigan. At this meeting scientific papers on various phases of illumination were presented and discussed.

Mr. Bishoff, who examines light projectors in class 240, is a member of the Society. While on detail to this meeting he inspected manufacturing plants and research laboratories connected with the lighting industry in Cleveland, Detroit, and Niagara Falls.