have a tendency when the pressure is released to return to its original shape and thus closely adhere to the inner member. While it is true, as urged by appellant in his brief, that the prior art did not teach in detail, as has appellant, the redistribution of stresses in the several layers of a multi-layer pressure vessel, we think that if the teachings of the prior art were followed, there would be a redistribution of stresses such as appellant claims to have discovered. A patent should not be granted for appellant's discovery of a result that would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art. It may be that appellant, by his study of the art and his teachings therein, has made distinct and advantageous advances in the art, but we are constrained to agree with the board that what he has done does not amount to invention. The decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming that of the examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal, is affirmed. 547 O. G. 399; 30 C. C. P. A. 730; 132 F. (2d) 140 IN RE RICE (No. 4646) L'ATENTS-PATENTABILITY-PRINTED MATTER. There is nothing in appellant's alleged invention other than the arrangement of printed matter and other indicia upon a sheet of paper. The claims, therefore were properly rejected as not patentable under the provisions of 4886 R. S. (U. S. C. Title 35, Section 31). United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, December 1, 1942 APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. 194,981 [Affirmed.] Emery, Holcombe & Miller (Charles F. Miller, Jr. of counsel) for appellant. W. W. Cochran (Clarence W. Moore of counsel) for the Commissioner of l'atents. [Oral argument November 3, 1942, by Mr. Charles F. Miller and Mr. Moore] Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, AND JACKSON, Associate Judges LENROOT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal brings before us for review a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting, upon the grounds hereinafter stated, claims 17 to 29, inclusive, of appellant's application for a patent. No claims were allowed. 564904-44- -11 Claim 17 is illustrative of the subject matter of the claims before us and reads as follows: 17. The art of writing sheet music which comprises reproducing upon a paper sheet a plurality of spaced charts consisting of a pictorial representation of a portion of a piano keyboard, the top surfaces of the black and white keys affording fields for indicating indicia, and applying indicating indicia to selected keys of each chart to indicate the keys to be played on the count or measure represented by the respective charts. The reference cited is: Dickson, 1,053,366, February 18, 1913. Appellant's alleged invention is sufficiently described in the above quoted claim. The examiner rejected the claims upon three grounds, viz, 1. That the claims are directed to subject matter not patentable under Section 4886, R. S. (U. S. C. title 35, sec. 31). 2. That the claims are not proper method claims. 3. That the claims lack invention over the disclosure of the Dickson patent. The Board of Appeals in its decision specifically ruled only upon the third ground above stated, viz, the rejection of the claims on the Dickson patent; but it did recite all of the grounds of rejection by the examiner, and, after stating that certain claims had been withdrawn by appellant, concluded its decision with the following: The remaining claims are rejected on the grounds given above and discussed by the examiner. The decision of the examiner is affirmed. This general affirmance was a complete affirmance of all the grounds upon which the examiner finally rejected the claims. In re Wagenhorst, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 991, 64 F. (2d) 780. In view of our conclusion with respect to the first ground of rejection above stated, it is unnecessary to discuss the other grounds, or further to refer to the Dickson patent, other than to say that it was issued in 1913; and, in view of the judicial decisions rendered since that time, we must assume such a patent would not now be granted by the Patent Office. We are in accord with the view that the claims before us are directed to subject matter not patentable under Section 4886, R. S., supra. All of the claims before us are directed to the art of writing sheet music, which comprises reproducing upon a paper sheet certain information as an aid to beginners in learning to play the piano. It is well established in patent law that invention cannot rest alone in novel printing arrangement, although it may reside in some physical structures of printed matter. In re Reeves, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 767, 62 F. (2d) 199; In re Sterling, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1134, 70 F. (2d) 910; Conover v. Coe, 69 App. D. C. 144. It is true that the above cited cases did not involve method claims, but the principles therein declared are equally applicable to method and article claims. The case of In re McKee, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1018, 64 F. (2d) 379, did embrace method as well as article claims. That case involved, among other things, the patentability of a method of marking meat. One ground of rejection of the claims by the Patent Office tribunals was that the marking of meat does not come within the purview of the patent statute. In affirming this ground of rejection by the Patent Office we said: In oral argument and in brief counsel has urged that under the case of Cincinnati Traction Company v. Pope, 210 Fed. 443, his claims should be allowed. That case is quite a famous one and may be said to be the leading case in this field. The patent involved a railway ticket comprising a body portion and a coupon, the ticket bearing conventional indications showing that the body alone was good at one time of the day and that the body and the coupon were required for the other portion of the day. The court there held that the device of the patent clearly involved physical structure and that the claims were limited to such structure. We see nothing more in appellant's alleged invention than the arrangement of printed matter upon meat. We are not impressed with the contention that the Cincinnati Traction Company case, supra, is authority for sustaining appellant's contention. On the contrary, the case is easily distinguishable from the case at bar. There the material upon which the printing appeared had a novel form, which form served a new and useful purpose. In the case at bar, the form of the meat is not in any respect made to depend upon the printing arrangement. So in the case at bar we see nothing in appellant's alleged invention other than the arrangement of printed matter and other indicia upon a sheet of paper. Appellant relies upon the case of In re Sheffield, 53 App. D. C. 109, wherein a decision of the Commissioner of Patents was reversed, which decision held that a method of visually indicating the structure and meaning of a sentence in the printing of books was unpatentable over two patents cited as prior art. The court held that the said patents did not negative invention of the claims before it, and that the appellant there had made a substantial contribution to the art. However, so far as appears from said case, the question here involved was not before the court and was not considered by it. The only question there considered was the patentability of the claims over the cited prior art. Therefore that case has no bearing upon the question of whether the involved claims embody subject matter patentable under Sec. 4886 R. S., supra. It is our opinion that, under the many decisions of this and other courts relating to subject matter patentable under the patent laws. the claims before us were properly rejected upon the first ground hereinbefore stated. The decision appealed from is affirmed. 551 O. G. 3; 30 C. C. P. A. 733; 132 F. (2d) 324 APPLEBY V. BECKMAN (No. 4647) PATENTS-PATENTABILITY-PRIORITY OF INVENTION The evidence of Beckman and that of the witnesses in his behalf, is, upon the whole, as credible as the evidence of Appleby and that of the witnesses in his behalf. Accordingly, Appleby has not met the burden of proof resting upon him of establishing priority of conception by a preponderance of the evidence. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [Affirmed.] APPEAL from Patent Office, Interference No. 77,708 J. Preston Swecker for appellant. Jack a Schley for appellee. [Oral argument November 5, 1942, by Mr. Swecker and Mr. Schley] Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, AND JACKSON, Associate Judges LENROOT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal in an interference proceeding from the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of the invention defined in the nine counts in issue to appellee, Fred G. Beckman. The interference is between appellant's application No. 254,095, filed February 1, 1939, and the application of appellee, No. 291,087, filed August 19, 1939, which is a continuation in part of a former application, No. 233,754, disclosing the same invention, filed October 7, 1938. During the motion period, appellee moved to shift the burden of proof based on his earlier filed application, which motion was granted by the Primary Examiner. Therefore appellee became the senior party, and the burden was upon appellant to establish priority of invention by a preponderance of the evidence. Count 4 is illustrative of the counts in issue and reads as follows: 4. In a well tool, the combination of a tubular drill stem having a drill bit therein, said drill stem having a passageway therethrough into the drill bit and having a lateral discharge opening in a wall thereof, a sleeve valve slidably mounted in the drill stem in position to close said lateral opening, resilient means acting on said valve in position to close the same, said valve having a central passageway therein, means for closing said valve passageway for opening the sleeve valve by pressure thereabove, and means for removing said passageway closing means by fluid pressure therebelow. The involved invention is described by the board in its decision as follows: The device comprises a tubular housing or casing to be secured in the drill string directly above the drill bit. The casing is provided with aperatures or ports in its sidewall. A sleeve is slidably secured within the casing to be moved from a position closing the ports to a position opening them. A spring normally urges the sleeve to port closing position. In this position normal drilling operations may be carried on with the usual reverse flow of the drilling fluid. When washing action is desired a ball or plug is inserted in the drill string and the direction of flow of the drilling fluid is reversed. The pressure of the fluid forces the ball or plug into seating engagement with the sleeve and causes it to move to port opening position. The seating of the ball in the sleeve also cuts off the flow of drilling fluid through the bit and causes it to flow laterally from the ports in the tool wall. The fluid thus is directed against the walls of the well and washes down the debris and loose material. When the washing action is completed the direction of flow of the drilling fluid is restored to normal and the ball or plug is forced upwardly in the drill string thus relieving the pressure on the sleeve which returns to its normal port closing position. The tool thus enables a washing action without the necessity of removing the drill string to change tools. The only controverted issues before us are questions of fact. Each of the parties claims to be the sole and original inventor, and each claims derivation of the invention from him by his opponent. Both parties took voluminous testimony. Appellant, Appleby, testified that he was by occupation an oil well driller with eighteen years experience, and as an independent contractor in August 1936, he finished drilling a wildcat well at Winona, Texas; that upon completion of this project he watched a rig drilling-in a well using reverse circulation, and a day or two later he visited the Muskogee Iron Works at Muskogee, Oklahoma, for the purpose of returning a derrick which he had rented from that con-. cern; that while there he met appellee, Beckman, who was employed by the Muskogee Company as consulting engineer; that at that meeting Beckman gave him a piece of literature describing the methods that he was using in drilling-in wells and cleaning-out wells in East Texas; that this method was known as "reverse circulation", and consisted of "* * a means of returning cuttings from the bottom of the hole, and cavings from the bottom of the hole, by pumping oil or fluid down the casing, around the outside of the rotating drill pipe, and returning the cuttings to the surface through the drill pipe"; that he became interested and about August 15, 1936, drove out and watched a rig installed by Beckman, which employed this method; that Beckman was present while the rig was working, and he, Appleby, talked with him there and with Beckman's driller, one * |