and the daughter that the perforations clogged with soot "after a long period of burning." This heater was introduced as an exhibit, but it had no stack. The Examiners-in-Chief commented upon this fact and upon the failure of any witness to testify that it ever did have one.

Hamilton was president of the Hamilton Orchard Heater Co. The Wheeling Corrugating Co., of Wheeling, W. Va., manufactured orchard-heating devices for Mr. Hamilton and a Mr. Westwood was the general sales agent of that company. Mr. Hamilton in June of 1912 visited the company, when the device

involved in this interference was taken into consideration, along with others, but was not adopted. No further activity occurred until after Dunn's heater was on the market, and a letter written by Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Westwood, quoted in full by the Examiners-in-Chief, clearly shows that Dunn's activity alone was responsible for Hamilton's change of attitude.

While we agree with the Examiners-in-Chief and the Assistant Commissioner that in no event, under the facts of this case, can it be said that Hamilton is the prior inventor, (Matthes v. Burt, C. D., 1905, 574; 114 O. G., 764; 24 App. D. C., 265; Brown v. Campbell, C. D., 1914, 170; 201 O. G., 905; 41 App. D. C., 499; and Dutcher v. Jackson, C. D., 1916, 154; 225 O. G., 738; 44 App. D. C., 465), we are quite clear that Dunn should be given a date of conception and disclosure as early as September 25, 1911; in other words, that the construction and operation of the early device in the presence of Mr. Schastey and Mr. Spreckels amounted to such a disclosure. The invention really resided in the perforated draft-tube, and Mr. Schastey's testimony would enable any one skilled in the art successfully to construct the device of the issue, which is sufficient to constitute a disclosure. Since that date is earlier than any date which can be accorded Hamilton, Dunn was entitled to the award of priority, as he showed due diligence.

Moreover, the burden was upon Hamilton to establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Putting aside the evidence of Dunn's early activity, Hamilton's evidence falls short of establishing that he conceived and disclosed the invention prior to the date of disclosure established by Dunn for his exhibit.No. 5.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

PORTER AND RIDER v. RIDER.

Decided April 2, 1917.

246 O. G., 824; 46 App. D. C., 294.

INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY.

Record reviewed and Held that priority was properly awarded to R., the senior party.

Mr. Henry D. Williams for the appellants.

Mr. Hans v. Briesen for the appellee.

ROBB, J.:

This is an appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to the senior party. The invention relates to a method of producing fuel-vapor from oils, such as kerosene and crude petroleum, adapted for use in internal-combustion engines. The counts are three in number, of which we reproduce the first and third:

1. The method of producing a fuel vapor adapted for use in internal combustion engines, which consists in (1) providing a substantially continuous supply of finely subdivided fuel liquid, (2) producing a flame and subjecting such liquid in its finely divided condition to the direct action of said flame for a length of time sufficient to effect only a vaporization of the liquid, (3) extinguishing the flame at a point in the progress of the vaporized material before any substantial amount of the material has been consumed, and (4) collecting the resulting product for use.

3. The method of producing a fuel vapor adapted for use in internal combustion engines, which consists in (1) providing a substantially continuous supply of finely subdivided fuel liquid, (2) producing a flame and subjecting such liquid in its finely divided condition to the direct action of said flame for a length of time sufficient to effect only a vaporization of the liquid, (3) extinguishing the flame at a point in the progress of the vaporized material before any substantial amount of the material has been consumed, (4) bringing the extinguished product at this stage into contact with a supply of superheated air which is mixed therewith, and (5) collecting the resulting product for use.

The case has been very carefully presented, both by brief and oral argument, and, owing to its importance, has received very full and careful consideration by the tribunals of the Patent Office. We have reached the same conclusion as did those tribunals and, being satisfied with their reasoning, affirm the decision without further discussion. Affirmed.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

MURPHY V. THOMPSON.

Decided June 2, 1917.

246 O. G., 824; 46 App. D. C., 515.

1. INTERFERENCE PRIORITY.

Record reviewed and Held that the renewal application of T. related back to his original filing date and that priority was properly awarded to him.

2. APPLICATIONS-FORFEITED RENEWAL REBUTS ANY PRESUMPTION OF ABANDON

MENT.

The granting of a renewal application by the Commissioner of Patents rebuts any presumption of abandonment.

Mr. J. A. Carr and Mr. A. M. Holcombe for the appellant. Mr. L. S. Bacon, Mr. J. H. Milans, and Mr. F. P. Davis for the appellee.

VAN ORSDEL, J.:

This appeal is from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to appellee Thompson. The case was disposed of on appellant's motion to dissolve the interference. Appellant also moved, in the alternative, that, in case of an adverse decision on the motion to dissolve, the burden of proof should be shifted to Thompson and a time set for the taking of testimony on the question of abandonment.

Appellant Murphy filed his original application December 22, 1911. A divisional application was filed April 10, 1915, on which a patent was issued October 12, 1915. Thompson's application was filed June 16, 1911; allowed December 31, 1914; forfeited June 30, 1915, and renewed November 9, 1915.

It appears from a comparison of the above dates that Murphy's patent was issued between the date of Thompson's forfeiture and the date of his renewal. Murphy, therefore, contends that Thompson had abandoned the invention at the date he acquired his patent. Of course, if the continuity of Thompson's original application was interrupted by abandonment, he could not claim constructive reduction to practice as of his original filing date. No testimony was taken on the question of abandonment, and the granting of a renewal by the Commissioner rebuts any presumption in favor of it.

In this situation, the tribunals below held that Thompson could relate back to his original filing date, which, on the face of the record, disposes of Murphy's contention. We are in accord with this view, since the case is ruled by the well-considered opinion of Mr. Justice Robb in Cutler v. Leonard (C. D., 1908, 483; 136 O. G., 438; 31 App. D. C., 297).

.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

BURT v. COATS AND CAMERON. COATS AND CAMERON v. Burt.

Decided December 3, 1917.

246 O. G., 1031; 47 App. D. C., 185.

1. INTERFERENCE-DISCLOSURE IN BRITISH PROVISIONAL SPECIFICATION.

Contentions of Coats and Cameron as to count 2 carefully considered, but Held that Burt in his provisional specification sufficiently disclosed the elements of this count to enable one skilled in the art to understand their construction and mode of operation.

2. SAME-SAME-SPECIFICATIONS ADDRESSED TO THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART.

As to count 3, having in mind that provisional specifications are addressed to those skilled in the art, the statement in Burt's provisional specification that the crank-pin is jointed to the valve-sleeve and the disclosure as to how the valve-sleeve is to move when the crank-pin is actuated by the crank-disk is a sufficient disclosure of the pin on the valvesleeve.

8.-SAME-INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC CLAIMS.

When dealing with an improvement in a well-developed art and it is established that one party is the prior inventor of the broad subject-matter of that improvement, the more specific counts should be interpreted in the light of the general disclosure. Count 3 awarded to Burt.

Mr. J. A. Watson for the appellant, (1112).

Mr. H. S. Hill and Mr. R. M. Everett, for the appellees, (1112.)

Mr. H. S. Hill and Mr. R. M. Everett for the appellants, (1113.) Mr. J. A. Watson for the appellee, (1113.)

PATENT appeals Nos. 1112 and 1113.

ROBB, J.:

Appeals from decisions of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding.

There were three counts before the tribunals below, and they read as follows:

1. A four-cycle engine valve system, comprising a main cylinder having Inlet and outlet ports located substantially in the same plane, at right angles to the axis of the cylinder and near its head, a separately movable valving cylinder having ports that coact with the mean cylinder ports, a piston moving within the valving cylinder, means for oscillating said valvIng cylinder with less than semi-rotation, to carry the ports into and out of registry laterally, and means for reciprocating said valving-cylinder with a stroke less than the stroke of the piston to carry said ports into and out of alinement longitudinally, for controlling the admission, compression, retention during explosion, and final expulsion of the working medium.

2. The combination with a cylinder of an internal combustion engine having Inlet and exhaust ports, of a sleeve in axial coincidence with said cylinder and having ports adapted to register with said ports of the cylinder, an eccentric longitudinal projection on said sleeve, a crank having its axis substantially perpendicular to the axis of the sleeve, means pivotally connecting said crank to said projection, and means for turning said crank.

3. The combination with a cylinder of an internal combustion engine having inlet and exhaust ports, of a sleeve in axial coincidence with said cylinder and having ports adapted to register with said ports of the cylinder, a pin projecting eccentrically and longitudinally from said sleeve, a rotary member having its axis substantially perpendicular to the axis of the sleeve, and a crank pin connecting said rotary member and pin and having a sliding engagement with one of said parts.

The Patent Office tribunals in turn awarded counts 1 and 2 to Burt, and Coats and Cameron have acquiesced in the award as to count 1 but have appealed as to count 2. The Examiner of Interferences and the Board of Examiners-in-Chief awarded priority to Burt as to count 3, but the Commissioner, according the count a more strict and technical interpretation, awarded it to Coats and Cameron, and Burt appealed.

The invention marks an advance in an art that already was quite well developed and relates to means for operating a single sleevevalve in a four-cycle internal-combustion engine, so as to give the valve both a longitudinal and a lateral or oscillating movement, by which the inlet and exhaust ports of the engine are opened and closed at the proper times. In other words, by this invention simpler means are provided for accomplishing the purpose sought.

Neither party has taken testimony, Burt relying upon the filing date of his British provisional specification of August 6, 1909, and his complete specification on February 2, 1910. While Coats and Cameron filed a provisional specification on July 19, 1909, they here rely upon their complete specification filed January 17, 1910. If, therefore, the Burt provisional specification contains a disclosure of counts 2 and 3, here in issue, priority must be awarded him.

While we have carefully considered the contentions of Coats and Cameron as to count 2, we nevertheless are convinced that the tribunals of the Patent Office correctly found that Burt, in his provisional specification, sufficiently disclosed the elements of this count to enable one skilled in the art to understand their construction and mode of operation. For the reasons stated by the tribunals of the Patent Office, we affirm their decision as to this count.

The Commissioner based his reversal of the decisions of the lower tribunals as to count 3 upon the ground that this count specifies a pin on the cylinder in addition to the crank-pin and that this pin is not described in Burt's provisional specification. Where, as here, we are dealing with an improvement in a well-developed art and it is con