recesses located at its corner portions respectively and each extending both longitudinally and transversely of the blade and cap to such an extent as to span the corresponding cap corner and provide a clearance space of sufficient area to receive said cap corner if bent toward the guard member, whereby a bent cap corner is prevented from exerting pressure on the blade while being flexed or when clamped and thereby breaking the blade or distorting its cutting edge. [Italics ours.]

Interference "B"

A safety razor of the double edge type comprising a guard, a cap, a flexible blade and means for clamping the blade between the cap and the guard in curved position, the guard, the cap and the clamping means constituting a holder for the blade, said blade being symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal center line and having cut-away corners providing lateral blade portions having ends at right angles to said center line and more centrally disposed portions extending longitudinally beyond the lateral portions, said guard having fulcrum edges a given distance from the longitudinal center line, said cap having side edges further from the longitudinal center line than the fulcrum edges, the blade being bent by the cap on the fulcrum edges as pivots, the ends of the lateral blade portions extending substantially between the side edges of the cap and the fulcrum edges and projections on one of the holder members in juxtaposition to the cut-away corners.

Interference "C"

1. A safety razor of the double edge type comprising a guard, a cap, a flexible blade and means for clamping the blade between the cap and the guard in curved position, the guard, the cap and the clamping means constituting a holder for the blade, said blade being symmetrical with respect to a longitudinal center line and having cut-away corners providing lateral blade portions having ends at right angles to said center line and more centrally disposed portions extending longitudinally beyond the lateral portions, said guard having fulcrum edges a given distance from the longitudinal center line, said cap having side edges further from the longitudinal center line than the fulcrum edges, the blade being bent by the cap on the fulcrum edges as pivots and the ends of the lateral blade portions extending substantially between the side edges of the cap and the fulcrum edges.

2. A safety razor comprising a flexible and elastic blade of oblong contour and internally apertured to receive positioning and clamping means, a guard member adapted to support the blade adjacent to the side edges of the latter, a transversely-concaved blade-clamping cap provided with parallel side edges, each of the aforesaid parts being symmetrical about a longitudinal center line, the side edges of the cap being further apart than the side edges of the guard member, means for positioning the blade between the cap and the guard member, and means for clamping said parts together and simultaneously causing the side edges of the cap to flex the blade transversely on the side edges of the guard member as fulcrums, the blade being provided with unsharpened ends and with reentrant recesses located at its corner portions respectively and each extending both longitudinally and transversely of the blade and cap to such an extent as to span the corresponding cap corner and provide a clearance space of sufficient area to receive said cap corner if bent toward the guard member, whereby a bent cap corner is prevented from exerting pressure on the blade while being flexed or when clamped and thereby breaking the blade or distorting its cutting edge. [Italics ours.]

proper

As is indicated by the counts, the invention relates to safety razors and the blades therefor, and the particular structure, as defined by the counts, concerning which the controversy arises, is in the construction of a safety razor blade with reentrant recesses located at the corners of the blade, and corresponding cap corners on a guard member. The chief question involved in the appeals, we think, is whether or not Swan had completed the invention defined by the counts prior to Thompson's filing date. The facts are not in serious dispute, but the conclusions to be drawn from them and the application of the law to them are matters of much controversy. Prior to January, 1927, in England, Swan designed and caused to be made several razors and razor blades which he claims showed a complete conception and reduction to practice, as far as their structure was concerned, of the invention of all the counts at bar. In England he filed two provisional applications for patents on the razors and blades, one of which, he thinks, and we think, discloses the invention defined by the counts at bar. In 1927, Swan was granted a design patent in England showing the razor blade described in his application here involved. In January, 1927, Swan came to this country and brought with him a gold plated razor known as Exhibit 3, with guard lugs at the ends of the cutting edges of the blade when the blade was inverted, as well as blades, known as Exhibits 4, 5 and 6, each of which blades had cut out corners and each of which fitted the razor, Exhibit 3. He also, at the same time, brought a razor, Exhibit 7, with similar guard lugs, and a blade, Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 had cut out corners and fitted said razors. He came to this country for the purpose of selling his invention, and in an effort to do so called upon the party Thompson who was associted with the Gillette Safety Razor Company, and others not associated with said company. Swan did not at that time dispose of his invention.

The Gillette Safety Razor Company is the owner of the Thompson and Holtzman applications here involved and both these parties are represented here by the same counsel.

On April 25, 1929, Thompson filed his application for a patent. Swan's application was filed October 17, 1930, and that of Holtzman was filed August 30, 1930, Holtzman took no testimony and, therefore, is restricted to his filing date for conception and reduction to practice.

One or more of the counts involved are quite similar to the claims found in the Thompson application. The party Thompson in his brief stated that on October 7, 1930, "the Examiner suggested to Arthur E. Swan the claim which appears as the count of" interference "A", said Arthur E. Swan then having in the United States Pat

115363°-37--11

ent Office a pending application which resulted in patent No. 1,802,289, and that on October 17, 1930, there was filed in the application of said Arthur E. Swan an affidavit made by Harry Swan (party in the instant cases) referring to a blade which he (Harry Swan) had introduced into the United States in 1927. (Italics quoted.)

Swan introduced the testimony of a number of witnesses for the purpose of showing what work he had done in England on the razors and blades which he brought into this country in 1927, and also the testimony of a number of other witnesses to whom the razors and blades were shown in this country. All this testimony was for the purpose of showing that when he brought the razors and blades into this country, he was in complete possession of the invention involved in the counts in issue and that Thompson obtained the invention from him.

That Swan brought into this country, in 1927, the exhibits above referred to, which consisted of razors with guard lugs and blades therefor having reentrant recesses fitting around the guard lugs, showed them to others, some of whom shaved with them, and that Swan attempted to dispose of his invention at that time, cannot be, and, we think, is not seriously questioned here. In view of these facts we deem it unnecessary to discuss in detail the testimony of each witness. That Swan brought in the razor exhibits, 3 and 7, and showed them to Thompson and left them with him, and that Thompson showed them to others in the Gillette Safety Razor Company factory, is not disputed. Thompson denies seeing any kind of blade fitted in the razors. Thompson also expresses some doubt as to the member called the bridge being connected with the razors when he saw them. He admits returning the razors a few days after receiving them with a letter in which he states that he was in receipt of "a cap and guard and wheel", but that he was of the impression that the statement was erroneous and that he should have said he received a "guard with wheels".

There is no contention here that the counts do not read upon Swan's disclosure in his application at bar. The important question is, as we see it, whether or not Swan's proofs show that Swan, prior to Thompson's filing date, had completed his invention. Thompson relies upon his filing date as the date of his conception and reduction to practice, having taken no proof in this connection. Other less important questions are involved and will be considered hereinafter.

[1] The Examiner of Interferences and the board held that Swan had not proven either by the testimony of his witnesses or by the exhibits that he had reduced to practice the invention of the

count of interference "A" and count 2 of interference "C" before Thompson's filing date. It will be noticed at this point that the sole count in interference "A" and count 2 of interference "C" contain the following provision at the end thereof: "* and provide a clearance space of sufficient area to receive said cap corner if bent toward the guard member, whereby a bent cap corner is prevented from exerting pressure on the blade while being flexed or when clamped and thereby breaking the blade or distorting its cutting edge."

Swan in his provisional applications made no mention of the fact that his construction as above set forth would have the effect, in event a cap corner was bent, of preventing pressure being exerted on the blade thereby distorting or breaking the blade, and we think the record fails to show that Swan, when in this country in 1927, claimed that his structure would perform this function. In one of the provisional applications is found the following language:

Guards may be provided at each corner of the blade so as to prevent any risk of the corner of the blade catching in the skin. Such guards may comprise lateral projections at the ends of each side of the upper plate or platform which projections extend substantially level with or slightly beyond the edge of the blade and are located at the corners thereof. Other forms of guard may however be combined with the cover plate which clamps the razor blade upon the platform or in any other desired manner.

If desired suitable recesses may be provided in each corner of the blade so as to permit the projecting corner guards to engage therein so as to more effectively screen the corners of the blade without obstructing its use during shaving.

It seems to fairly appear from the evidence that the recessed corners of the blade and their relation to the guards in Swan's structure were at the time of filing his provisional applications, and as far as the record shows prior to the filing of the instant application, intended to provide a means whereby the projecting corner of the blade would not cut the face of the user of the razor in which he used the recessed-corner blade. The important features of Swan's razor (as distinguished from the blade) described in his provisional applications, as well as in the application here involved, consists of certain diagonal guiding discs with guard lugs at the end of the cutting edges of the blade. The guiding discs are small wheels or rollers set at an angle of 45° and are intended to cause the razor when drawn across the face to travel at an oblique angle, which Swan states is the proper natural movement for a blade to properly work in shaving. Swan's construction with reference to the reentrant recesses and projecting guard was aimed, we think, at solving the problem of preventing the face being cut

during the said diagonal travelling movement of the razor, owing to the exposed corners of the razor blade.

From what the board stated in its decision in interference "A" and from its decision in awarding Swan certain counts involved in the other interferences, it seems evident that the language of the count above-quoted with reference to the bent cap corners preventing pressure so as to break the blade was regarded as a material feature of the count, the full usefulness of which Swan did not appreciate. The board concluded that as to the count in interference "B" and count 1 of interference "C", which did not contain the above-quoted language which is found in the count in interference "A" and count 2 in interference "C", Swan had made a complete reduction to practice. It must be remembered that the holding of the board as to Swan's not being in possession of the invention of the count in interference "A" and of count 2 of interference "C", in which Swan was denied priority, is based upon the same evidence as were the holdings as to the counts which were awarded to Swan.

It is stated by Swan and not disputed here that the drawings of the blade and the razor in his application before us were made from the razors and blades which constituted the articles which he brought into this country in 1927. A comparison of the exhibits and the drawings would seem to verify this statement. There is no question raised in this court that the counts do not read upon the disclosure in the application.

We think that all the counts in the interferences at bar read upon Swan's Exhibits 3 and 7 when used with the blades, Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 8, that the utility of the razor and blades had been tested, and that when he disclosed them in this country he was in complete possession of the invention expressed in the counts, and it is our view that it was immaterial whether he, at that time, realized that his reentrant recessed razor blade and guard arrangement had new and useful results other than those which he at that time claimed.

It is true that the board assigned certain reasons for concluding that the structure of Swan's Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 did not satisfy the terms of the single count in interference "A" and count 2 in interference "C". It used the following language:

Swan's Exhibit No. 3 is a razor wherein the ends of the cap terminate approximately in alignment with the ends of the cutting edge of the blade, Exhibit No. 4. The cap of Exhibit 3 and blade No. 4 appear to be so nearly of the same length that very close measurement would be necessary to detect any difference. In order to satisfy the terms of the count it appears to us that more extended length of cap would be necessary as compared to the edge of the blade in order that it might overhang the end of the blade further. The cap in Exhibit No. 3 is regarded as doubtfully satisfying these conditions. Exhibits 3 and 4 resemble the showing in Figs. 1 to 9 of Swan's drawing but it