clearly not at all dependent upon any particular machine but would obviously be useful in general as carried out either manually or by implements or other forms of machines built on different plans from the one shown. Probably in most such cases claims for the method would if allowable over the state of the art, constitute a separate subject of invention and generally should not be allowed to stand in the same case with claims for the machine. The third case may be regarded as constituting an intermediate zone where it may be difficult to decide between whether the claimed method represents anything separate from the mere function of the machine or may doubtfully be separate enough as to constitute a true subject of invention. In such cases the question of patentability of the method over the machine is one for individual determination. After careful consideration of the situation presented here it is our opinion that while it is conceivable that the steps set forth in the sequence of that of the appealed claim might be partly carried out by hand, such alleged method represents nothing of practical importance if separated from a machine of the type shown. So far as stirring the glass in the furnace to produce a current therein is concerned, it is totally immaterial whether the gathering or blank forming element move in one direction or another while in the glass. The essential requirement is that the gathering device which must oscillate for a time with the continuously traveling receiving molds should make the shortest and most conformable path of travel to accomplish this. This is believed to be purely and simply the mechanical movement of the device and it is not regarded as being a true patentable method separate from the machine. It is regarded as so clearly and simply the movement of parts of this particular machine that we do not believe it constitutes such method. We have given careful consideration to and agree with applicant's contention that the relation of movements of this gathering device and the receiving molds is probably the most efficient of the various different ways of moving them, that is, where the paths of movement of the two parts are broadly analogous to that of points on two meshing gears. However, this is believed to be only function of machine and not true method. The act of stirring the glass in a backward direction relative to the molds is an independent matter which as such is of no advantage over stirring it in the other direction. [Italics ours.] It is our opinion that this ground of rejection is warranted. The courts have frequently had before them questions quite similar to the one presented here, namely: When is a method claim objectionable as being a mere recital of the function of a machine? This court has, on a number of occasions, considered the question here presented. Substantially the same question was involved in our decision of the case of In re McKee, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents), post 438 (Patent Appeal No. 3534), decided concurrently herewith. In In re Ernst et al., 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1235, 71 F. (2d) 169, the authorities were carefully considered and our reasoning in that case was followed in In re McCurdy, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1140, 76 F. (2d) 400. From all the authorities it appears that the rule has become well settled that if the method of a claim can be performed by any other apparatus than that of the applicant, or if it can be performed by hand, it cannot be said that the claim recites the mere function of the apparatus so as to make its allowance double patenting. We think this rule, when applied to the issue at bar, controls the decision of the only question presented. If the steps of the method may be performed by other apparatus or by hand, the ground of rejection by the board, we think, must be held to be unsound. It will be noticed that in the opinion of the board is the following statement: After careful consideration of the situation presented here it is our opinion that while it is conceivable that the steps set forth in the sequence of that of the appealed claim might be partly carried out by hand, such alleged method represents nothing of practical importance if separated from a machine of the type shown. It is difficult to understand just what is meant by the latter part of the last-quoted language. The Solicitor for the Patent Office, after quoting this part of the board's decision, states: As the Board of Appeals intimated, it is apparent that an implement held in the hand and guided by the hand could gather glass from a pool and deposit it in a series of receivers. As the Board of Appeals observed, however, the particular movement imparted by hand would there be without patentable significance. and we If the board by the above-quoted language meant to say, know of no other meaning to give the language, that before the rule we are here considering can be applied in cases like that at bar, the carrying out of the method by hand should be of practical importance to the extent that it is commercially important, we think it was in error. In making application of the rule, surely the Patent Office or the courts are not required to weigh and consider the merits of the practical and commercial possibilities involved in a comparison of machine operation and hand operation. It frequently occurs, as it has in the case at bar, that a given piece of work may be done by hand by following a sequence of steps, the steps of which method may be new, useful and inventive, and an inventor then may produce a machine that will carry out the steps of the invention. Invention may rest in the steps of the method and it may rest in the production of the machine. In the case at bar, the board has held that the prior art did not disclose the steps of appellant's method, and because of the novelty and usefulness of the appellant's device, the article claims were allowed by the examiner. Appellant in his brief has discussed the prior art with a view of showing not only that appellant's process might be carried out by the hand operation of certain features of prior art machines, but also to illustrate the possibility of appellant's process being carried out by more than one kind of machine. After careful consideration we are of the opinion that the Board of Appeals erred in holding that the steps of the method were "purely and simply the mechanical movement of the device" which had been held to be patentable. The board was of the opinion that the relation of movements of the gathering device and the receiving molds was "probably the most efficient of the different ways of moving them." We think it is clearly apparent that appellant's method is an advancement in the art. We think he is entitled to a claim which will afford him adequate protection. He would have no adequate protection if others were privileged to carry out appellant's novel method of glass feeding by using some other kind of machine with which to do it. The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. 463 O. G. 4; 23 C. C. P. A. 725; 79 F. (2d) 746 IN RE CROWELL (No. 3524) 1. PATENTS-REISSUE-ESTOPPEL. Appellant is estopped to claim the subject matter of claims 1 and 8 of the present application for reissue of the deliberate cancellation of claim 23 of the parent application. 2. PATENTS REISSUE-NEW MATTER. The alleged new matter does not relate merely to the uses of an invention already old, but is in fact matter which discloses for the first time the combination of steps contained in appealed claim 6. Said claim 6 therefore is not patentable. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, [Affirmed.] November 25, 1935 APPEAL from Patent Office, Serial No. 648819 Milburn & Milburn (Joseph F. Westall and J. W. Milburn of counsel) for appellant. R. F. Whitehead (Howard S. Miller of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents. [Oral argument November 4, 1935, by Mr. Miller; submitted on brief by appellant] Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges HATFIELD, 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 the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting appealed claims Nos. 1, 6, and 8 in appellant's application for the reissue of patent No. 1,828,100. The claims read: (1). The method of cementing wells, which consists of: first, closing by a traveling plug, the bore of a normally substantially open well casing at a predetermined point intermediate its upper and lower ends; second, opening, by fluid pressure from the top of the well, normally closed ports located in said casing above said predetermined point of casing-bore closure; third, forcing a liquid cementing mixture downwardly through said casing and outwardly through said ports; fourth, closing valves controlling said ports, thus holding the cement in the annular space outside the casing. (6). The method of cementing wells, which consists of: first positioning the casing a short distance from the bottom of the well; second, establishing circulation through the casing and the annular space outside the casing; third, forcing by fluid pressure from the top of the well, a liquid cementing mixture downwardly through the casing; fourth, closing the bore of the casing at a predetermined point intermediate its upper and lower ends; fifth, continuing the application of fluid pressure to force said liquid cementing mixture outwardly through normally closed ports located in said casing above said point of closure of said casing; sixth, discontinuing pressure to allow spring-actuated valves of said ports to close, thus holding the cementing mixture in the annular space outside of the casing. (8). The method of cementing wells, which consists of: first, establishing fluid circulation through the well-casing and through the annular space outside of the casing; second, inserting in its upper portion a plug carrying means slidingly fitting said casing; third, forcing a liquid cementing mixture into said casing above said plug and downwardly through said casing advancing said plug before it; fourth, closing the bore of said casing by the stoppage of said plug at a predetermined point intermediate the upper and lower ends of said casing; fifth, continuing the application of fluid pressure from the top of the well to force open normally closed ports in said casing above said predetermined point of closure, and to force said cementing fluid outwardly through said ports and into the annular space outside of the casing; sixth, releasing pressure from the top of the well to permit the valves controlling said ports to close, thus holding the cement in the annular space outside of the casing. The references are: Perkins et al., 1,011,484, Dec. 12, 1911. Crowell, 1,432,017, Oct. 17, 1922. Crowell, 1,502,179, July 22, 1924. Crowell, 1,601,239, Sep. 28, 1926. Davis et al., 1,641,741, Sep. 6, 1927. Halliburton, 1,860,669, May 31, 1932. It appears from the record that the application upon which patent No. 1,828,100 issued was a division of parent application Serial No. 171,851, filed March 1, 1927, which matured into patent No. 1,828,098, October 20, 1931. During the prosecution of the parent application, appellant cancelled claim 23 contained therein. It reads: 23. Well casing having an unobstructed open bore throughout its length, a normally closed lateral port in the casing adapted to open responsive to pres sure in the casing, a plug slidable in the bore of the casing, and means for anchoring the plug in the unobstructed bore of the casing below the port and above the lower end of the casing so as to shut-off the entire bore of the casing below [the port and leave the entire bore of the casing unobstructed above the port]. The Board of Appeals held that as appealed claims 1 and 8 were for substantially the same subject-matter as that defined in cancelled claim 23, appellant was estopped from presenting them in the involved application. The board rejected appealed claim 6 on the ground that it contained new matter not disclosed in the original specification. [1] It will be observed that appealed claim 1 differs from cancelled claim 23 in that the former states that the bore of the casing is "normally substantially open," whereas the latter specified a casing having an "unobstructed open bore throughout its length"; and that whereas the appealed claim provides for closing of valves controlling the ports in the casing, such valves are not expressly referred to in the cancelled claim. Counsel for appellant contend that cancelled claim 23 is "only for a sub-combination," and that the provision for a normally substantially open bore of a casing, plus the additional step of closing valves controlling the ports in the casing, contained in appealed claim 1, calls for a patentable combination not disclosed in the prior art, nor claimed in the cancelled claim. Appellant states in his specification that it is advantageous "to have the full bore, or substantially the full bore, of a string of casing available when carrying on drilling operations or washing down the string of casing, and it is also desirable when circulating a washing medium preparatory to a cementing operation to utilize the bore of the casing, which should not be substantially impeded or restricted, and then to supply the cementing mixture through the unobstructed bore of the casing, or, at least, through a bore of the casing not restricted or obstructed to such an extent as to seriously impede or prevent the operation referred to." Appellant frequently refers in his specification to the bore of the casing as being "unobstructed,” “substantially unobstructed," and "substantially open," and it is perfectly clear that the bore of the casing must be substantially open in order to carry out appellant's process. It will be observed, therefore, that appellant has used the terms. "unobstructed," "substantially unobstructed," and "substantially open" interchangeably. Accordingly, for the purpose of this case, the term "unobstructed," contained in cancelled claim 23, should be interpreted as having the same meaning as the term "substantially open," contained in appealed claim 1. See Walker on Patents, (6th Ed.) Vol. 1, § 227. Obviously then, a "casing having an unob |