[Oral argument May 11, 1936, by Mr. Johns and Mr. Miller] Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENBOOT, Associate Judges LENROOT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the examiner rejecting appellant's application for a patent upon the ground that the sole claim in the application was unpatentable in view of the cited prior art. The involved claim is No. 8, and reads as follows: 8. The method of wrapping meat which comprises first freezing the product and then wrapping in a transparent non-adherent material substantially impervious to air and moisture and then enclosing the whole in an elastic stock. inette fabric covering adapted to exert a constant gentle pressure over all surfaces of the product and bring the inner wrapping in intimate contact with the entire surface of the product. The references cited are: Brace, 200,248, February 12, 1878. The alleged invention relates to a method of wrapping meat and is sufficiently described in the claim above quoted. The patent to Brace relates to preserving meats and discloses wrapping the meat in paper and then enclosing it in a tight-fitting muslin or canvas sack. The entire package is then hermetically sealed by a coating of asphaltum. The patent to Mitchell relates to a process of coating meats, especially hams and bacon, in which the article is first wrapped in tissue prepared to resist moisture, following which there is drawn over the article a cotton fabric consisting of a sleeve or envelop of finely knitted material. The patent to Birdseye relates to consumer packages for use in the distribution and storage of meat products. It discloses, among other things, a leg of lamb wrapped in a cellulose lining, or other thin, transparent, flexible, substantially moisture-proof material, and enclosed in a woven covering of textile material. The patent states: * I have found stockinet particularly well suited for the requirements of the case but any loosely woven, somewhat elastic and self-conforming textile material would serve as well. * A glaze is then formed on the exterior of the package, after which the entire package is frozen. The patent further states: By using a thin flexible transparent material, such as sheet cellulose, for the first wrapper and surrounding this by a yielding textile covering, I am enabled to bring the inner wrapper into intimate contact with the soft moist surface of the meat product, causing the wrapper to adhere thereto without the interposition of air spaces, so that in the subsequent freezing operation the transparent wrapper is frozen directly to the meat product. It thus becomes substantially invisible so that the consumer may inspect the appearance of the product and the identifying marks which it may carry. This contributes largely to the salability of the complete package and is an important advantage incident to my invention. It will furthermore be noted that by wrapping the soft moist product in unfrozen condition, less wrapping material is required on account of its yielding character and that the labor and skill of applying the wrapper is less than would be required in the wrapping of a rigid product. I contemplate, therefore, wrapping the product in an unfrozen or only partially frozen condition, and complete the package by a freezing operation. The British patent to Butterwith relates to a preservative covering for articles of food and the like. The article is wrapped in vegetable parchment and then enclosed in a wrapping or envelop of woven fabric. The examiner rejected the claim for lack of invention over each of the patents to Brace, Mitchell, and Butterwith, and also rejected the claim on the patent to Birdseye. The Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the examiner. Both the examiner and the board relied mainly on the patent to Birdseye in the rejection of the claim, holding that freezing the meat before wrapping, as disclosed by appellant, instead of after wrapping, as disclosed by Birdseye, did not involve invention. Birdseye clearly discloses all of the steps in appellant's process, but not in the same order. While it is true that a change in the order of steps in a process may involve invention, we are in agreement with the Patent Office Tribunals that invention was not involved in the case at bar in freezing the meat before wrapping. While it is true that Birdseye states that there are certain advantages in freezing the meat after wrapping, which advantages are named in the patent, there is nothing in the patent to indicate that freezing before wrapping would be detrimental. It seems to us that a farmer who, after slaughtering in the early winter, had a quantity of frozen hams, and wished to prevent their dehydration or desiccation before curing, might well have employed the Birdseye method except that he naturally would not thaw out the hams before applying the method of wrapping taught by Birdseye, and would wrap them exactly as is proposed in appellant's claim. It is clear to us that there would be no invention in so doing. For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. 471 O. G. 711; 23 C. C. P. A. 1190; 83 F. (2d) 826 IN RE PALM AND SALZMAN (No. 3629) PATENTS-PATENTABILITY-ANTICIPATION. All of the claims on appeal held properly rejected as unpatentable in view of the prior art of record. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, June 1, 1936 APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. 692109 [Affirmed.] Fay, Oberlin & Fay (William R. Day of counsel) for appellants. ( R. F. Whitehead (Howard S. Miller of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument May 5, 1936, by Mr. Day and Mr. Miller] Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, 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 examiner rejecting claims 1 to 8, inclusive, of appellant's application for a patent upon the ground that said claims lacked patentability in view of the cited prior art. All of the claims are article claims. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative of the claims in issue and read as follows: 1. As a new article of manufacture, a composite metal strip composed of a layer of relatively hard metal and a layer of softer metal integrally bonded thereonto, said strip having the outer surfaces of said two layers in a uniform predetermined relation. 7. As a new article of manufacture, a composite metal strip for bearings composed of a layer of relatively hard metal and a layer of cast softer metal bonded integrally thereonto, said layer of hard metal being irregular in contour and the surface of said softer metal being similarly and complimentarily irregular but with the over-all thickness of said composite strip being uniform throughout its area, and the grain structure of said cast softer metal being in substantially as-cast condition. The references relied on are: Palm, 1,729,747, October 1, 1929. The alleged invention relates to a bi-metallic strip composed of a layer of relatively hard metal, such as steel, and a layer of softer metal, such as bearing or other metal, the latter being applied in molten state to the first, and the layers being bonded together, said strip having a uniform over-all thickness. The article is intended for fabrication into bearings. The application discloses an element contained in claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 that is not found in the other claims, viz., that the layer of hard metal is irregular in contour, and that the surface of the softer metal is similarly and complementarily irregular in contour. The patent to Palm, 1,729,747, relates to a method of bonding dissimilar metals. The bonding of the metals is, however, mechanical and they are not integrally bonded, as called for by the claims in issue. The patent to Gunthard, 1,756,739, relates to apparatus for applying a soft metal surfacing to hard metal plates. The product is an integrally bonded strip. The patentee states:. * * Immediately prior to reaching the point where the plate is cooled by the cooling means 15, a doctor plate or scraper 19 is disposed for smoothing the same off to a uniform thickness or depth. * If desired, the upper surface of the coating B may be further subjected to a smoothing action by a rotary cutter or cutters 20 provided for the purpose. * * The examiner rejected all of the claims upon the patent to Gunthard, and also rejected claims 1 to 4, inclusive, as not patentable over the patent to Palm. The Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the examiner for the reasons stated by him, and also stated: We note that appellants filed another application for the process and in our opinion if their contribution involves patentability, it is in the process rather than the product. Certainly no one desires an irregular strip, and this is merely one of the defects resulting from the manner of producing the article. Obviously, a strip such as specified in above-copied claim 7 cannot be superior in any way to one which is not irregular and in which both layers are of uniform thickness. It is our opinion that an inventor of a patentable process is not entitled to a patent on the product merely because certain incidental characteristics, which are without utility, appear in that product. We are clear that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 read directly upon the patent to Gunthard, and were properly rejected for that reason. With respect to claims 3, 4, 7, and 8, which, as hereinbefore noted, recite as an element that the layer of hard metal is irregular in contour and that the surface of the soft metal is similarly and complementarily irregular in contour, we are of the opinion that this element does not lend patentability to said claims in view of the patent to Gunthard. Upon this point the examiner stated, with respect to claim 4, as follows: Claim 4 requires that the layer of hard metal have its "original irregularly contoured outer surface". The word "original" adds nothing patentable to the claim, since it cannot be told by examining the finished strip whether the outer surface was originally irregular or was made so later in the process. All that claim 4 requires is that the composite strip of Gunthard should be bent. The product resulting from such bending will be reasonably uniform in gauge, and will have the hard and soft metal layers with an irregular contour. Such bending step is obviously not invention. Claim 3 also reads on the composite strip of Gunthard bent into any desired shape. We are in accord with the foregoing statement, and said statement is likewise applicable to similar elements in claims 7 and 8. An examination of this group of claims will disclose that there is nothing stated therein which is not true of the strip of Gunthard when, as stated by the examiner, said strip is "bent into any desired shape." In view of our agreement with the examiner with respect to these claims, it is unnecessary for us to consider the matter set out in the above quotation from the decision of the Board of Appeals. In our opinion all of the claims before us were properly rejected as unpatentable in view of the patent to Gunthard, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. 472 O. G. 500; 23 C. C. P. A. 1192; 83 F. (2d) 692 IN RE HORNE (No. 3642) PATENTS-DESIGNS-NOVELTY. Appellant's design has many elements, is quite complicated, and even though it may be said that, broadly speaking, none of its features considered separately are new, yet the combination as a whole involved the exercise of the inventive faculty. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, June 1, 1936 [Reversed.] APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. D-48761 Stone, Boyden & Mack (J. Hanson Boyden of counsel) for appellant. R. F. Whitehead (Howard S. Miller of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument May 7, 1936, by Mr. Boyden and Mr. Miller] Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges LENROOT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the examiner rejecting, for want of patentability in view of the cited prior art, appellant's application for a design patent, the claim reading as follows: The ornamental design for a climbing structure, as shown. |