Cummings's claim of invention was an improvement in insulatingconductors. Having referred to his drawings, he said:

At the present time it is desirable to find a means of transmitting currents of exceedingly high tension, so that the power found in various places in the shape of waterfalls such as Niagara Falls, may be transmitted, economically, long distances.

Then, after stating, as the result of experiments, that the rubber covering of conductors will be ruptured by a current of 18,000 volts, and claiming for his conductor a carriage capacity of 65,000 volts, without affecting either the conductor or the insulation, he describes his invention as follows:

A is the conductor. I first paint this conductor with an insulating-varnish and inclose it between two semicylindrical sections C having interlocking joints, such as D, at the meeting edges.

These sections are made of wood and are made so that when they are connected they will tightly embrace the conductor. Before assembling it I thoroughly saturate them with some suitable compound to prevent their rotting, such for instance with boiled linseed-oil. I then inclose the sections thus formed by filling-sections E, of wood grooved to embrace the tube or tubes formed by the sections C, having similar interlocking joints as that shown at D in the inner tube, these sections being treated in the same manner before being assembled. The outer sections are arranged so that their joints are intermediate the joints of the inner section, or with so-called "break-joints." The conductor with its insulation as thus described is then forced under pressure into a jointless sleeve or casing F, which is previously dipped in liquid asphaltum, the insertion being made while the asphaltum is still wet. I next connect the end of the casting F with a discharge from a suitable pump, or by any other suitable means, force under great pressure liquid paraffin into all of the crevices and the conductor is complete.

At the end the inner and outer tubes project beyond the casing different distances, while the conductor D projects still further than either insulatingtube, so that the ends may be welded together, or otherwise fastened. I then inclose the exposed portions of the conductor by means of sectional insulatingblocks G and H formed in sections of the size and shape of the insulating-tubes which will be plainly seen as shown in Fig. 3. The whole is inclosed in a suitable casing or junction-box J. Instead of using but a single conductor in a casing I may employ two, as shown in Fig. 4, in which case the outer insulating filling-sections are made in sections with as many grooves as there are inner tubes or conductors.

His claims during several years of proceedings in the Office, until the suggestion of the claim of the issue that had been made in the pending application of Viele, were limited to the insulated conductor aforesaid.

What each applicant had in mind was a different invention. Viele believed that he had discovered a novel and effective means of splicing cable conductors carrying high-tension currents, making the connections of an electrical strength equal, at least, to the insulation on

the body of the conductor. On the other hand, Cummings had in mind a new conductor for such currents to meet the demand therefor created by the development of enormous electric power by means of great waterfalls, and limited his claim thereto. He knew, of course, that to utilize his invention the ends of conductors would have to be connected from time to time. He proposed to weld these together thereby making a continuous conductor of the desired length. His plan of insulation and inclosure was the same along the entire length of his conductor, including the connections. He had no idea of constructing a special joint for, or means of joining cable conductors in general. Connecting the ends of conductors as described is an incident of his novel insulated conductor for the economical conveyance of very high-tension currents.

Considering the claim of the issue in the light of these disclosures, we agree with the Examiners-in-Chief that Cummings is not entitled to make it.

An esential requirement of the issue is the splice of the conductors which is a special feature of Viele's description. This, and the illustrative drawings, show a real splice by bringing the ends of the conductors together and brazing onto them the connecting-section or inner sleeve surrounding them. Cummings makes no splice, in the ordinary meaning of that word, but welds the connecting ends together making a continuous conductor with no enlargement thereof at the meeting point. While it is true, as said by the Commissioner, that this enlargement is not set forth in the claim, it is the necessary result of the actual splice which Viele makes. At the connectingpoint, as elsewhere throughout its entire length, the conductor of Cummings has fitted around it two semi-cylindrical sections of wood, covered by similar sections of the same material. Wood is a nonconducting material, and the Commissioner was of the opinion that the wooden casing of Cummings is both "a sleeve and a bridge in the same sense in which these terms are applicable to the part 5 of Viele." This conclusion proceeds from a broader interpretation of the issue than we think should be given it, and we agree in opinion with the Examiners-in-Chief, who said:

There is no sleeve forming the bridge or connection between the insulations on the connecting conductors in the sense used in the Viele application.

Another requirement is that the space between the conductor and sleeve must be filled with non-conducting material. Turning to Viele's specifications, we find that he introduces plastic, non-conducting material which actually fills this space to the practical exclusion of the air therefrom. While in a general sense it may be said that the insertion of the wooden casing within the outer one fills the space,

we do not think that it does so within the meaning intended. As said by the Examiners-in-Chief

the resemblance of the two devices is accidental rather than real.

It may be that in some respects the claim of the issue is broader than it might have been framed under Viele's specifications, but in case of any doubt it should be given the evident meaning intended by him who first made it. (Podlesak v. McInnerney, C. D., 1906, 558; 120 O. G., 2127; 26 App. D. C., 399, 407, and cases cited.)

We are of the opinion that it cannot be regarded as so broad and general as to warrant the claim under the application of Cummings. Believing that Cummings had no right to make the claim, we must reverse the decision. It is so ordered, and that the clerk specify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents as the law requires. Reversed.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

GUENIFFET, BENOIT, AND NICAULT v. WICTORSOHN.

Decided February 18, 1908.

134 O. G., 779; 30 App. D. C., 432.

1. INTERFERENCE-KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVENTION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY-INTRODUCTION INTO THE UNITED STATES.

Appellants built in a foreign country a machine embodying the invention in issue, which was explained to an agent who came to this country. Held that even if this agent remembered what was explained to him such knowledge on his part, in the absence of disclosure to others or reduction to practice by himself within a reasonable time, would not be equivalent to an introduction of the invention into this country.

2. SAME PRIORITY OF INVENTION.

W. obtained a French patent on September 25, 1900. The earliest foreign filing date of the opposing party was subsequent to this date, and the evidence did not establish an introduction into this country by said party prior thereto. Held that priority of invention was properly awarded to W. 3. SAME ACT OF MARCH 3, 1903, CONSTRUED.

The act of March, 1903, by which the limitation within which an application must be filed in this country after the filing of a foreign application for the same invention was extended from seven months to twelve months construed and Held not to apply to applications pending at the date of its passage.

Mr. L. S. Bacon, Mr. J. H. Milans, Mr. D. A. Usina, and Mr. Arthur C. Fraser for the appellants.

Mr. M. B. Philipp and Mr. C. J. Sawyer for the appellee.

VAN ORSDEL, J.:

This is an appeal by appellants from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents awarding to appellee a priority of invention of the

machine in controversy. (C. D., 1907, 379; 131 O. G., 1685.) The issues involved in the interference proceeding in the Patent Office are as follows:

1. The combination of means for fringing one end of mouthpieces, and bending tongues on said fringe with means for rolling up said mouthpieces, with the bent tongues extending inwardly.

2. The combination of means for feeding wrapper-tubes with rolled mouthpieces therein, with a concave guide and a cylinder coacting therewith to slightly unroll the mouthpieces.

3. In combination in a cigarette-machine, means for feeding the mouthpiecepaper, means for fringing the same, and means for rolling the fringed papers. 4. Means for forming mouthpieces for cigarettes, said means including, in combination, a hollow casing, a rod arranged to turn in the interior of said casing, and an eccentric portion on said rod, forming a nipper for gripping the paper against the inner periphery of the casing by the turning movement of said rods.

5. In a machine for making mouthpieces for cigarettes, the combination of means for producing both teeth or serrations at one edge of a piece of paper, and for bending up said teeth, and means for rolling said paper to form a mouthpiece with said teeth projecting into its interior.

The invention in question relates to an automatic mechanism for the manufacture of a tubular mouthpiece for cigarettes, and for inserting the same into the wrapper of the cigarette in such manner as to prevent tobacco from passing from the cigarette into the smoker's mouth.

The parties are all residents of foreign countries. Appellee filed his application in the Patent Office January 9, 1901, and appellants filed theirs May 9, 1901. Each of the parties has secured foreign patents on the invention in question, appellants' being a French patent dated January 26, 1901, on an application filed October 27, 1900. Appellee secured a French patent dated September 25, 1900, on an application filed June 13, 1900. Appellee also filed an application for patent on the same invention in Austria on June 5, 1900, upon which patent was issued December 27, 1901.

It appears that appellee was in possession of this invention at least as early as September 25, 1900, as disclosed by the French patent. This is leaving out of consideration any earlier possession that may be disclosed by the Austrian patent. Inasmuch as in an interference proceeding the only question involved is that of priority of invention, it is unnecessary to determine the respective rights of the parties to patents under their pending applications. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the appellants to establish themselves in possession of this invention prior to September 25, 1900. Certainly no disclosure or reduction to practice abroad can be claimed by them prior to this date, since their earliest foreign filing date was October 27, 1900, more than a month subsequent to the issuance of the French patent to appellee.

It is urged on behalf of appellants that the invention was introduced into this country by one Julius N. Jaros, their agent, September 17, 1900, eight days prior to the granting of appellee's French patent. On this point, we think the evidence fully supports the conclusion of the Commissioner, which is as follows:

It appears that Julius N. Jaros was in Paris from May to September, 1900, and during this time visited the Decouple works a number of times, where appellees were employed, who showed him a machine embodying the issue in controversy. He states that he saw it in operation and that the mechanism was fully explained to him. It further appears that he left Paris for New York, arriving on September 17, 1900, bringing with him a number of cigarettes which had been made with appellees' machine. It appears that after his arrival he said nothing about this machine or the product manufactured by it to any one prior to December, 1900, when he had a conference with his brother, Alfred L. Jaros. It is unnecessary to consider what was disclosed to the latter at this time, as it is subsequent to the date of Wictorsohn's French patent. Alfred L. Jaros testified that his brother wrote him from Paris in May or June regarding the machine in question; but it does not appear that the mechanism was described in these communications, and they were destroyed before the testimony was taken. Appellants rely solely, therefore, for an introduction of the invention into this country, prior to September 25, 1900, upon the knowledge possessed by Julius N. Jaros at the time of his arrival in New York.

If Jaros remembered what he saw in Paris, such knowledge on his part, in the absence of disclosure to others or reduction of the invention to practice by himself within a reasonable time, would not be equivalent to an introduction of the invention into this country. It does not appear from the evidence that Jaros either possessed sufficient knowledge to enable him to construct the machine in question or to have given one skilled in the art sufficient information to have enabled him to construct it. Neither does it appear that appellee acquired any knowledge of the invention from appellants.

It is contended by counsel for appellants that, since appellee filed his application in this country more than seven months after the filing of his application in Austria, the Austrian application, which ripened into a patent, erected a bar against the issuance of any patent. to appellee in this country. This contention is answered by counsel for appellee by conceding that, though appellee's application was filed seven months and four days after he filed his application in Austria, and was therefore barred from maturing into a patent under the law as it then existed; that, under the act of Congress of March 3, 1903, the limitation within which an application must be filed here after the filing of a foreign application for the same invention was extended from seven months to twelve months; and that by operation of law his application was revived, and he is entitled to proceed to patent under the present law. To so interpret the act of March 3, 1903, would be to make it apply to applications pending at the date of its passage. This court has decided in the present term that the act of