their finding on the ultimate question of invention will not be disturbed unless. it is clearly wrong. 3. PATENTABILITY-WELL DRILLING. Certain claims directed to the drilling of oil wells Held properly denied to appellants. APPEALS from the district Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. Affirmed. Mr. John H. Bruninga (Mr. Chas. E. Riordon of counsel) for Reed and Fohs. Oil Company. Mr. W. W. Cochran (Mr. Howard S. Miller of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices EDGERTON, A. J.; These appeals are from judgments of the district court under R. S... § 4915, 35 U. S. C. § 63, refusing, for lack of invention, to authorize the issue of patents. One group of claims relates to a process of drilling a well by employing as a drilling fluid a molten asphalt or sulphurous material of widely variable viscosity, instead of the conventional clay and water. Heating coils, attached to the drilling system, make possible the varying of the viscosity of the fluid through temperature control, so as to permit control of formation pressures encountered in drilling. The other group of claims grows out of the fact that the drilling fluid becomes solid, or substantially solid, at atmospheric temperatures. The applicant claims that this enables him to build a wall within a well while drilling it, or to wall a bore hole, or to cement a casing. within a well. Swan Patent No. 1,455,010 discloses the use of a hot viscous liquid as a well-drilling fluid. While Swan prefers to use coal tar, he says that other liquids having similar physical properties may be used. He claims that, by use of this fluid, "any change in the conformation due to gas-pressure" may be controlled, and that, when cooled, the fluid will "become plastic or even congeal" so as to produce "a hardening of the wall structure and practical protection against weathering and caving," thus "obviating the necessity of cementing the well." Christians Patent No. 1,327,268 discloses a method of sealing crevices in rock formations in connection with grouting a dam. He uses either sulphur, asphalt, or coal tar pitch. The fluid is maintained in a heated condition by electric wiring, and forced down a pipe into the rock crevices. The current is then shut off, which allows the liquid to cool and to become "nearly solid." Jackson and Ryan Patent No. 1,866,522 discloses a method of cementing a casing in a well by use of heated sulphur or asphalt, preferably sulphur, as a cementing agent. Claims which specify the use of molten sulphur in the drilling of a well were allowed by the Patent Office, but the Patent Office and the district court found that the claims now on appeal lack invention over the references. [1] [2] [3] Appellant urges, among other things, that Swan relies upon specific gravity rather than viscosity control to meet formation pressures, that Christians is in a non-analogous art, and that appellant successfully solved a problem which had become acute in the welldrilling art. These facts, if true, do not compel a finding of invention. When invention is in doubt, the satisfaction of a long-felt want may be thrown into the scale along with the other evidence, and is persuasive, but it is not conclusive. Similarly, the adaptation of a process from a different art may or may not amount to invention.3 These are all matters of evidence. The weight to be given to the evidence is a question for the Patent Office and the district court. We cannot disturb their finding on the ultimate question of invention, since we do not think it clearly wrong. Affirmed. [U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia] THE HYDRAULIC PRESS CORPORATION, INC., AND ERNST V. COE, No. 8,210. Decided February 15, 1943 549 O. G. 561; 134 F. (2d) 49 1. WORDS AND PHRASES-"FORCE." * "The word 'force' may have a mathematical or technical physical meaning and one of common usage. The two are not identical, but they are closely related. As applied to physical forces, the one is a function of the other. Force' may mean either exact pressure times exact area to which the pressure is applied, or it may mean simply an operative physical power, without taking account of the exact quantity applied." Where appellants alleged that the term "drawing force" was used in their claims in its mathematical or technical physical meaning, but none of the claims gave any evidence of having been drawn in technical mathematical language or that of physics Held that "It is difficult to believe that claims drawn thus would depart, in a single instance, from the general pattern to employ a term in an unusual technical meaning, without saying so explicitly, particularly when the term has also a common one which fits into the pattern.” 1 Paramount Publix Corp. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U. S. 464, 474, 452 O. G. 701 ; Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corp v. Coe, 69 App. D. C. 372, 377, 501 O. G. 7. 2 Altoona Theatres v. Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U. S. 477, 487-488, 452 O. G. 705; Abbott v. Coe, 71 App. D. C. 195, 196, 512 O. G. 3. 3 Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. 579; Butler Mfg. Co. v. Enterprise Cleaning Co., 81 F. (2d) 711, 716. 3. SAME-SAME-SAME. "The term must be taken, both from the general pattern and purpose of the claims and from its more ordinary meaning, to have been used in its common, rather than its more technical sense. The history of these claims, as shown by the record, also lends weight to this view. And it derives support from the rule * * that the claims must be given the broadest interpretation of which they reasonably are susceptible." 4. PATENTABILITY-HYDRAULIC PRESS. Certain method claims in an application disclosing a hydraulic press for forming sheet metal Held properly rejected to appellants in view of the prior art. APPEAL from the District Court of the United States for the District of ColumAffirmed. bia. Mr. D. C. Staley (Mr. H. A. Toulmin, Jr., and Mr. John M. Mason of counsel) for The Hydraulic Press Corporation, Inc., and Ernst. Mr. W. W. Cochran (Mr. E. L. Reynolds of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. Before GRONER, Chief Justice and VINSON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices. RUTLEDGE, A. J.: Appellants' suit, to secure a decree authorizing the issuance of a patent, was filed pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 4915 (1878), 35 U. S. C. § 63 (1940). The appeal is from a judgment of dismissal. The claimed invention relates to a hydraulic press for forming sheet metal into various shapes. The principal issue is whether appellants' claims have been anticipated by the Ferris patent, No. 1,970,134. Claims 4, 5, and 7 are the only ones now in issue, the others having been abandoned or cancelled. Claim 4 may be taken as typical, but we set forth the other two in the margin, with variations from the language of claim 4 indicated in italics.1 Claim 4 is as follows: 4. A method of generating and utilizing hydraulic power for clamping articles being drawn comprising clamping the article by hydraulic means at its periphery with different pressures at different locations therearound, applying a drawing force to the article while so clamped, diverting a portion of the drawing force to generate hydraulic pressure during the drawing operation, and applying the pressure so generated to produce the clamping action. [Italics added.] 1"5. A method of generating and utilizing hydraulic power for clamping articles being drawn comprising clamping the article by hydraulic means at its periphery with different pressures at different locations therearound, applying a drawing force to the article while so clamped, diverting a portion of the drawing force to generate hydraulic pressure during the drawing operation, and applying the pressure so generated to produce the clamping action and release the excess pressure at a predetermined maximum.” [Italics added.] "7. A method of generating and utilizing hydraulic power for clamping articles being drawn comprising clamping the article by hydraulic means at its periphery with different pressures at different locations therearound, applying a drawing force to the article while so clamped, diverting a portion of the drawing force to generate hydraulic pressure during the drawing operation, applying the pressure so generated to assist the clamping action, applying a retracting force to the member applying the drawing force, diverting a portion of the retracting force to generate pressure and applying the pressure thus generated to maintain the clamping pressure during retraction." [Italics added.] 564904-44- -3 Appellants' present position is that Ernst's invention over Ferris consists in the features disclosed in the italicized language. They insist, contrary to appellee's contention, that Ferris does not disclose them, and apparently concede that the features described in the remaining language are found in Ferris. The basic position of the Patent Office is that the claims are too broad. That is, they are drawn so broadly that they are readable on Ferris and consequently cannot be allowed, whether or not Ernst's modifications would be inventive and claims allowable if drawn in properly limited terms. However, it is not conceded that invention exists, and the district court found expressly there is none. The positions of both parties have varied somewhat during the proceedings, including those in the Patent Office, and in order to make the respective contentions clear we turn to a more specific statement of the facts. The chief claimed advantages of appellants' invention are increased efficiency and economy of operation. Higher operating speed is achieved, it is said, at the same time with greater conservation of energy. It is not disputed that Ernst has made a useful improvement upon the prior art or that it has been commercially successful. Appellants' machine, as disclosed in the drawings, is much simpler than that of Ferris with, it may be assumed, the resulting economies simplicity usually brings. The general characteristics of the two disclosures are set forth in the trial court's findings of fact as follows: The Ernst application here involved discloses an hydraulic press for forming sheet metal in which the metal to be shaped is clamped at its periphery while the central portion is forced into a die cavity by means of a plunger. The plunger is actuated by an hydraulically operated piston and the clamping pressure is applied by means of auxiliary pistons which move in cylinders formed in a block at one end of the main piston. The arrangement is such that as the main piston moves the drawing plunger toward the work it also serves to generate hydraulic pressure in the cylinders containing the clamping pistons. The Ferris Patent No. 1,970,134 discloses a press in which a sheet of metal is clamped at its margin while the central portion is forced into a cavity by means of an hydraulically actuated plunger. The liquid for actuating the plunger is supplied by a pump which, the patent states, is driven at a constant speed. The same pump also supplies liquid to the hydraulically actuated mechanism which clamps the periphery of the sheet during the drawing operation. The clamping means may be adjusted to provide different pressures at different portions of the periphery. The means for effecting this adjustment comprises adjustable relief valves for releasing pressure fluid at different points on the periphery when predetermined pressures are attained. The processes are identical in using hydraulic force, derived from a pump, for both clamping and drawing or plunging operations. The former holds the work piece in place, while the latter molds it to the desired shape. Both clamp the work piece at its periphery to a die, 2 Cf. note 3 infra. with different pressures at different locations around the periphery. In both this differential in clamping pressure is maintained by relief valves which allow the liquid to escape when the pressures reach desired points. This feature permits adjustment of the clamping pressure to work pieces of irregular thickness and shape. Both use hydraulically operated pistons or mechanisms for applying the clamping pressure. Both processes apply the drawing force to the central part of the work piece while it is held in place by the clamping force. Both use a piston to apply the drawing force, hydraulically operated. In both the drawing force, derived through the piston, forces the central portion of the work piece into a cavity in the die, thus molding the metal into the desired shape. These are the principal and basic features of identity, though it should be mentioned that in both instances the only force which is introduced into the machine, whether for the clamping or for the plunging operation, comes from a single source, namely, the pump which Ferris specifies shall be operated at constant speed. We turn now to the features of difference. The two processes operate in opposite directions. In Ferris the die is at the top and the plunging piston at the bottom of the machine. Both the clamping and the plunging or drawing operations are applied in an upward direction against the work piece and the die. In Ernst the die is at the bottom and the plunging piston operates downwardly against the work piece and the die to which it is clamped. This difference in itself is immaterial. But the basic difference, and the one in which invention is claimed, lies in the operation of the clamping force. This will be described in detail. To do this, however, further attention must be given to the operation of the drawing force, with which the clamping force is associated in both machines, but in a somewhat different manner. As has been stated, the whole force introduced into the machine in both cases, that is, the only external force, is derived from a pump, which in fact supplies the pressure for both the clamping and the plunging or drawing operations. Because it will be convenient to distinguish it from other forces, we shall call this total force introduced into the machine from the pump the external force. In Ferris this force leaves the pump at one point and travels a very short distance, probably not more than a few inches, in a single pipe. The pipe then branches into two separate pipelines, one of which carries liquid to the clamping mechanism, the other conducting it to the plunging piston. One line therefore carries what may be called the clamping force, the other the drawing force. It is obvious that the clamping force is diverted from the supply line which extends from the pump to the drawing ram or piston. Operation of the clamping |