longer arm extending toward said first mentioned end of the pile substantially parallel with the long arm of said first mentioned lever.

11. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, and electro-magnets for controlling the operation of said levers.

12. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, each lever having a short arm mechanically connected to the pile and a long arm, said long arms extending substantially parallel to one another, and means for operating said lever.

An appeal is also taken from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief granting a motion made by Jepson to dissolve the interference. The single count is as follows:

In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever operating upon one end of said pile and extending toward the other end of the pile, and a second lever operating on the second mentioned end of said pile and extending toward the rst mentioned end of said pile.

The claims involved in the motion to amend are numbered 8 to 12, inclusive, and are claims 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 of the application of Jepson. The count of the interference was first presented as claim 4 of the Jepson application. These counts were all suggested to Creveling, with the proviso that he overcome a patent to Sherbondy, No. 989,305. In order to overcome this patent, Creveling filed an affidavit calling attention to two prior applications and setting forth that each of these applications disclosed the subject-matter of each of the claims. Upon this showing the Examiner declared the interference with claim 4 of Jepson as the single issue and refused to include claims 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17. Creveling then brought a motion under Rule 109 to have these claims included as counts of the issue, urging that the subject-matter thereof was disclosed in his prior applications. Jepson also brought a motion to dissolve, alleging, among other things, that the subjectmatter of the count was not disclosed in the prior applications of Creveling, and it was therefore anticipated by the patent to Sherbondy. The Law Examiner denied the motion to amend and granted the motion to dissolve on the ground that the structure called for in the above claims was not disclosed in the prior applications of Creveling. The Examiners-in-Chief affirmed the decision of the Law Examiner, and from their decision this appeal was taken.

The structure in the earlier application of Creveling, upon which it is alleged that the claims under consideration read, is designated by the numerals 5 to 18, inclusive. The lever is pivoted at its lower end and by reason of the spring 5 compresses the carbon pile 3. At the lower end of the lever 7 is an arm 8, placed at right angles to 7 and carrying an upright arm 11. Connected to the outer end of the arm 8 by means of the pivot 10 is a lever 9 11, which is moved to its operative position by the spring 13. The carbon pile 12 is placed between the

arms 11 11 and is compressed by the spring 13. The springs 13 and 5 thus produce the maximum pressure to which the carbon piles 12 and 3 are respectively subjected. In order to reduce this pressure, the lever 9 is secured by means of the rod 15 to the core 17 of the solenoid 18. When the core 17 is drawn inward, the spring 13 is compresed until the step 16 strikes 8, at which time the pressure exerted by 11 on the carbon pile 12 is reduced to a minimum. The elements 9 and 8 then become a rigid arm, and further inward motion of 17 operates to extend the spring 5 and reduce the pressure on the carbon pile 3 without producing any further effect on the carbon pile 12.

Claim 8 calls for a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the other end of the pile, which may be answered by the element 9 11 and operated by the spring 13. This claim further calls for a second twoarmed lever having a short arm operating upon the other end of the pile and having a long arm extending toward the first-mentioned end of the pile. This second lever is not disclosed in this application, as the elements 7, 8, 11 do not act on the carbon pile 12 as a lever, but merely act as a stop, against which the pile is forced by the lever 9. So far as this claim is concerned 8 is a fixed member, to which 9 is pivoted and against which the spring 13 presses.

As there is only one lever disclosed which operates on the pile 12, neither the count of the issue nor the claims of the amendment can be read on this disclosure. It necessarily follows that the further limitations set forth in the claims as to the arrangement of the second lever or the means for operating it are not disclosed.

The structure in the later Creveling application, upon which it is contended that the claims read, is indicated by the numerals 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 30, and 32. When the current in the line 6 becomes too great, it operates the solenoid 25, which applies pressure to the carbon pile 23, reducing the resistance therein and permitting a greater current to flow through the solenoid 15, and thus raise the lever 12, which causes the resistance in the carbon pile 7 to increase, and thus reduce the current in the line 6. It is urged by Creveling that the elements 12, 30, and 32 are levers which act upon the carbon pile 23 in the manner defined in the claims. While the element 12 may operate as a lever on the carbon pile 7, it has no such action on the carbon pile 23, but merely serves as an abutment against which the pile may be pressed. The lever 30, pivoted at 31, does act as a lever to compress the carbon pile 23 against its abutment; but all the claims call for two levers, one operating on each end of the pile, which is not found in this disclosure. As the second lever included in all the claims is not disclosed, the further limitations as to the operation and location of the second lever are also not disclosed.

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

EX PARTE CREVELING.

Decided September 22, 1916.

247 O. G., 746.

1. PATENTABILITY-DISCLOSURE OF APPLICATION.

Record reviewed and Held that the appealed claims cannot be predicated upon the disclosure of this application without forcing upon them a meaning which robs them of their sense.

2. DIVISION-CARBON PILE.

Held that carbon piles have attained a distinct status in the art as subjects of invention independently of the systems in which they are to be used. APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief.

ELECTRIC-LIGHTING SYSTEM.

Mr. Charles McC. Chapman for the applicant.

EWING, Commissioner:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting the following claims:

7. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever operating upon one end of said pile and extending toward the other end of the pile, and a second lever operating on the second-mentioned end of said pile and extending toward the first-mentioned end of said pile.

8. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever operating upon one end of said pile and extending toward and beyond the other end of the pile, and a second lever operating on the second-mentioned end of said pile and extending toward the first-mentioned end of said pile.

9. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon one end of the pile and a long arm extending toward and beyond the other end of the pile, a second two-armed lever having a short arm operating upon said second-mentioned end of the pile and a long arm extending toward the first-mentioned end of the pile.

10. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, and electro-magnets for controlling the operation of said levers.

11. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, two levers operating upon said pile mechanically independent of one another, each lever having a short arm mechanically connected to the pile and a long arm, said long arms extending substantially parallel to one another, and means for operating said levers.

12. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever having an arm operating upon one end of the pile and another arm extending toward the other end of the pile, and a second lever having an arm operating upon said second-mentioned end of the pile and another arm extending toward the first-mentioned end of the pile.

13. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever having an arm operating upon one end of the pile and another arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second lever having an arm operating upon said second-mentioned end of the pile and another arm extending toward the first

mentioned end of the pile, an electro-magnetic device, and means coöperating with the said levers and electro-magnetic device for actuating said levers.

14. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever in cooperative relation to said pile and having an arm operating upon one end thereof and another arm extending toward the other end of the pile, a second lever in coöperative relation with said pile and having an arm operating upon said second end of the pile, and an arm extending toward said first-mentioned end of the pile substantially parallel with one of the arms of the first-mentioned lever.

15. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, an electro-magnetic device, a lever arranged in coöperative relation to the carbon pile and operably connected to the said device, a second lever arranged in coöperative relation to the carbon pile, and means for actuating said lever whereby the two levers are caused to operate upon the carbon pile to vary the action of the latter.

16. In an arrangement of the class described, a carbon pile, a lever arranged to operate upon one end of the pile, a second lever arranged to operate upon the opposite end of the pile, an electro-magnetic device connected to one of the levers for operating the latter, an electro-magnetic device and connections between the latter and the other lever whereby the latter may be actuated, the combination being such as to vary the action of the two levers upon the carbon pile.

With respect to claims 7 to 13, inclusive, the question of disclosure here presented was disposed of inter partes in interference Creveling v. Jepson, No. 36,115. In that interference the Creveling application involved was filed September 22, 1911. Against it was cited a patent to Sherbondy, No. 989,305, and in order to overcome this patent Creveling called attention to two previous applications of his, the earlier of which is the one at bar.

The Primary Examiner upon this showing declared the interference with a single count, which was identical in language with claim 7 here appealed. He refused, however, to include counts identical with claims 10 and 11 and other counts differing but slightly from claims 9, 12, and 13.

Upon motion by Jepson, the interference was dissolved on the ground that the subject-matter thereof is not disclosed in the Creveling application at bar nor the other Creveling applications referred to, thus leaving Sherbondy as an anticipation thereof. The discussion of this point in my opinion of March 5, 1915, in so far as it applies to the application at bar, is here in substance restated.

The structure upon which it is alleged that the claim under consideration reads is designated in numerals 5 to 18, inclusive. The lever 7 is pivoted at its lower end and is pressed by the spring 5 against the carbon pile 3, thereby compressing it. The lever 7 is in vertical position at the lower end thereof, and extending beyond the pivot is a horizontal arm 8, which carries an upright arm 11. Connected to the outer end of the arm 8 by a pivot 10 is a lever 9, carrying another up.

right arm 11. The carbon pile 12 is placed between the arms 11 11. The arm 11 mounted on 8 is substantially stationary so far as 12 is concerned. The arm 11 mounted on 9 is pressed against the carbon pile by a spring 13, attached to the arm 9 near its outer end and bearing against the under side of the arm 8. The normal pressure of the springs 5 and 3 upon the carbon piles 3 and 12, respectively, is reduced by the operation of a solenoid 18 and plunger-core 17, attached to one end of the arm 9 by a rod 15. When the core 17 is sucked in, the spring 13 is compressed until the stop 16 strikes the under side of the arm 8, at which time the pressure exerted upon the carbon pile 12 has been reduced to a minimum. The elements 9 and 8 thereafter act as a rigid arm, and with further downward motion of the core 17 they operate to extend the spring 5 and reduce the pressure on the carbon pile 3, without, however, producing any further effect upon the carbon pile 12.

Each of the claims here appealed calls for two levers.

Referring now to claim 7, the carbon pile must be pile 12. The lever operating upon one end of the pile is 9 11. The second lever, operating upon the other end of the pile, is lacking for the reason that so far as pile 12 is concerned the element 7 8 11 acts merely as a stop or abutment, just as does the back of the frame in which pile 3 is mounted.

The foregoing comment disposes of the remaining claims.

As indicated above, the ground of this decision is identical with that reached in the inter partes proceeding.

In the structure disclosed by the Jepson application involved therein the carbon pile was, in fact, pinched between the short ends of two levers, the long ends of which lay parallel to each other beneath the piles and were attached to plungers of two solenoids located under the ends of the pile.

To predicate the claim of Jepson, which constituted the count of the issue upon the disclosure of the present application, seems to be impossible without forcing upon the terms of the count a meaning which robbed them of their sense, and this is true of the claims appealed, as indicated above.

As to the question of division, it is apparent from an examination of claims 1 to 6, as filed August 16, 1913, that they are for a general system. The term "carbon pile" does not appear in any of them, nor is any specific term used to indicate this element. Both of the lower tribunals have stated the fact to be that carbon piles have acquired a distinct status in the art as subjects of invention independently of the systems in which they are to be used. Under these circumstances I find no error in the requirement of division.

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