hole invention to the special machine of the company, at the factory in Chicago. Parkes lived in Brooklyn. The arrangement was perfected, and Parkes went to the factory about January 7, 1899.

It is claimed, on behalf of Onderdonk, that on November 19, 1898, in the New York office of the company, he got the idea of the two needles operating one behind the other, and communicated the same to Parkes. The idea was suggested to him by Holden's patent for a button-hole device showing two needles abreast, which had just been published in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE. Parkes admitted conversation with Onderdonk about the Holden patent, but denied that Onderdonk communicated to him the two-needle arrangement of the issue. This he claimed to have invented long before that date.

The Examiner of Interferences found that Onderdonk had the idea of the invention as to the use of the two needles on November 19, 1898, and explained it to Parkes. He found also that Parkes had made the invention and disclosed it to others, as shown in certain drawings made prior to October, 1898, and, therefore, awarded priority to Parkes.

The Examiners-in-Chief were not satisfied that Onderdonk had an independent conception of the invention which he disclosed to Parkes; but they agreed with the Examiner of Interferences that Parkes had conceived and disclosed the invention of the issue before the conversation with Onderdonk, and affirmed his decision.

The Commissioner was also satisfied that Parkes had made the invention before any disclosure by Onderdonk, and for that reason held it unnecessary to consider whether Onderdonk had an independent conception of the invention on November 19, 1898.

The unanimity of the tribunals of the Patent Office imposes the burden upon Onderdonk to clearly show error therein in order to obtain reversal of the decision against him.

The entire testimony of the parties, including that showing the relation between Parkes and the Union Special Sewing Machine Company, has been reviewed at length, and with fairness by the several tribunals of the Patent Office in turn. A careful examination of the whole of the evidence, in the light of the arguments that have been made respecting its credibility and weight, has failed to convince us that there was error in the conclusion that Parkes was in possession of the invention prior to any communication made by Onderdonk.

It would serve no useful purpose to discuss this evidence again, as we could add nothing new to its review in the decision referred to. As this conclusion is decisive of the question of priority, we deem it unnecessary to consider the question whether Onderdonk had a complete conception of the invention at the time of his interview. with Parkes on November 19, 1898.

The decision will, therefore, be affirmed. It is so ordered, and that this decision be certified to the Commissioner of Patents as the law requires. Affirmed.

IN RE CHASE and McKenzie.

Decided March 31, 1908.

135 O. G., 895; 31 App. D. C., 154.

PATENTABILITY-PROCESS-PRINTING ANILIN-BLACK.

Where it is old in the art of dyeing to fix anilin-black upon vegetable textile fabrics by a two-step process consisting in treating the fabric with salt of anilin alone and with an oxidizing salt mixed with a compound containing a catalytic agent and it was old to print textile fabrics in twostep processes, Held that to apply to the two-step printing process the selection of ingredients theretofore used in dyeing did not arise to the dignity of invention.

Mr. G. L. Roberts and Mr. J. G. Meyers, Mr. A. V. Cushman, and Mr. G. W. Rea for the appellant.

Mr. F. A. Tennant for the Commissioner of Patents.

SHEPARD, C. J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents denying an application for a patent for an improvement in the art of producing printed anilin-black designs upon vegetable textile fabrics, having the following claims:

1. The method of producing anilin-black designs upon vegetable textile fabrics, by successively printing thereon, in either order of sequence, the constituents essential to the development of anilin-black separated into two groups, one constituted by the anilin salt itself, and the other constituted by the remaining ingredients, in such a manner as to superimpose the separate imprints upon each other wherever the design is ultimately to appear; that is to say, printing with the oxidizing salt and the catalytic agent mixed together and suitably thickened, one of the two mutually-complementary figures which in conjunction are to form the ultimate design, and printing with the anilin salt suitably thickened, the other remaining complementary figure so as wholly or partly to superpose it upon the figure first printed, next subjecting the fabric to treatment adapted for effecting the development of anilin-black wherever all of the said constituents have been coincidentally deposited; and finally clearing from the fabric, the anilin salt which has remained isolated from the ingredients of the other imprint.

2. Method of producing anilin-black designs upon vegetable textile fabrics, by successively printing thereon in either order of sequence, but so as to superpose one imprint upon the other, wherever the design is ultimately to appear, on the one hand, with a suitably-thickened mixture of sodium chlorate and a vanadium salt, one of two mutually-complementary figures which in conjunction are to form the ultimate design, and on the other hand, with a suitablythickened anilin salt, the other remaining complementary figure, next sub

jecting the fabric so printed to treatment adapted for effecting the development of anilin-black wherever the ingredients of the two imprints have been coincidentally deposited, and finally clearing the fabric from the anilin salt, which has remained isolated from the ingredients of the other printing mixture.

As stated by the Commissioner:

The alleged invention is a process for producing printed anilin-black designs upon vegetable textile fabrics in such manner as to prevent the development of any resistant or indelible coloring product of the anilin salt except only when all the constituents essential to the production of anilin-black are coincidentally deposited upon the product.

The color known as anilin-black has been used in the art of dyeing for many years, and its formation is described in the application as follows:

Anilin-black, as is well known, results from the chemical reaction of three essential constituents of a color mixture deposited upon a vegetable textile fabric, namely, (1) a salt of anilin, usually the hydrochlorid, and occasionally that of another acid; (2) an oxidizing salt such as potassium chlorate or sodium chlorate, and (3) a compound containing some one of certain few metals; among which may be especially mentioned, iron, copper and vanadium, or incidentally chromium, cerium and uranium, and each of which by virtue of its presence excites and promotes the chemical transformation of the anilin by a process of oxidation into anilin-black.

The applicants state that when the three compositions are separately printed the overlapping of the supplementary figures sometimes causes the formation of an indelible anilin color outside of the predetermined design in anilin-black. They obviated this defect by printing but two supplemental figures, one with a suitably-thickened mixture of the oxidizing salt and the catalytic agent, and the other with a suitably-thickened anilin salt alone. As it is admitted that the production of anilin-black requires the coöperative action of but three essential ingredients, the question is, whether the applicants' selection of the manner of applying the ingredients involves invention in view of the state of the prior art. Among the references showing this are the following patents: Pinkney, August 23, 1870, No. 106,616; Pinkney, May 21, 1872, No. 127,102; Jeanmaire and Schmid, January 2, 1906, No. 808,987.

The first Pinkney patent shows processes of treating the fabric with a mixture of the anilin salt, the oxidizing agent and the catalytic agent, or by treating the fabric with two baths, one consisting of a solution of anilin salt alone, and the other of a mixture of the oxidizing, and the catalytic agent. These baths may be used in either order of sequence. Pinkney patent No. 127,102 discloses the process of two baths for dyeing fabrics, one consisting of anilin salt alone, and the other of an oxidizing and a catalytic agent, naming sodium chlorate as the former and a vanadium salt as the latter. Both of

these are mentioned as such agents in applicant's specifications. Neither of these patents specifically states that the printing of the figures may be accomplished by the successive application of two complementary impressions, one printed with the anilin salt, and the other with a mixture of the oxidizing and catalytic agents. The first claim of the Jeanmaire and Schmid patent reads as follows:

The method of producing designs upon vegetable textile fabrics, which consists primarily, in successively printing thereon, in either order of sequence, two separate constituents whose combination is essential to the formation of a fixed color, in such manner as to superimpose the one upon the other wherever the design is to be produced, that is to say: printing with one of these constituents suitably thickened, a delimiting figure having its area and contour, respectively, corresponding to the field and outline of the ultimate design; and printing with the other remaining constituent suitably thickened, a pattern of decorative detail consisting of predetermined variegations and having, in the aggregate, such extent and shape as, when printed, to cover the spaces occupied by the field of the delimiting figure; next subjecting the fabric so printed to treatment adapted for effecting the combination of the said constituents in the formation of such fixed color, wherever they may have been coinci dentally deposited; and finally clearing from the fabric those removable portions of the said constituents which have remained isolated from each other.

As anilin-black is produced by the use of the three ingredients before stated, it is necessary in the two-step printing process, to divide them so as to group two of them together, leaving the other to be used by itself. As said by the Examiners-in-Chief but three combinations were possible, as follows:

(1) (a) Anilin salt, oxidizing salt,

(b) catalytic salt;

(2) (a) Anilin salt, catalytic agent,

(b) oxidizing salt;

(3) (a) Anilin salt,

(b) oxidizing salt and catalytic agent.

The third of these is the successful one described in the claims. But this was not left to those skilled in the art of printing colors to learn by experiment alone, because Pinkney's patent No. 106,616, as pointed out above, describes a process of dyeing with anilin-black, by the two baths, one consisting of the anilin salt alone, and the other of the oxidizing and catalytic agents combined; either to be used as the preliminary one.

In view of the state of the art as shown in the patents aforesaid, we must agree with the Commissioner, that applicants appear to have done nothing more than to apply to the Jeanmaire and Schmid processes of printing the selection of a combination of the ingredients disclosed by Pinkney. This did not rise to the height of invention.

The decision must be affirmed. It is so ordered, and that the clerk certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents. Affirmed.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

CARROLL v. HALLWOOD.

Decided March 31, 1908.

135 O. G., 896; 31 App. D. C., 165.

1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY—APPEAL-ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

On appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief from a decision of the Examiner of Interferences an assignment of error which assails the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in awarding priority on the whole case to the opposing party is sufficient to preserve appellant's right to argue the question of res adjudicata by reason of a judgment in a prior interference. 2. SAME-SAME-RES ADJUDICATA WHEN QUESTION MAY BE RAISED.

Whether or not the question of priority of invention is res adjudicata by reason of a judgment in a prior interference is a question which may be raised at any stage of the interference proceedings, and it is not only proper, but is the duty of the tribunal before whom the case is tried to take up and consider this question of its own motion where it is not raised by the parties.

3. SAME-SAME-SECOND INTERFERENCE RES ADJUDICata.

Where, in an interference proceeding, after bringing a motion to dissolve the interference, alleging non-patentability and non-interference in fact, and unsuccessfully contesting the same, the senior party abandoned the invention of the issue and the Patent Office rendered judgment of priority in favor of the junior party, the senior party cannot thereafter file an amendment to his application claiming the invention which is comprehended in the prior issue and have the question of priority between the same parties readjudicated; the decision in the first interference renders the question of priority of the more limited issue of the second interference res adjudicata.

Mr. J. B. Hayward for the appellant.

Mr. Paul A. Staley for the appellee.

VAN ORSDEL, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding involving certain improvements in cashregisters. (C. D., 1907, 416; 131 O. G., 2417.) On May 13, 1902, interference No. 21,803 was declared between the application of appellee, No. 711,329, filed April 1, 1899, and the application of appellant, No. 664,298, filed December 29, 1897. The issue in this interference was as follows:

In a cash-register, the combination with registering devices, of a series of operating pawls, means for locking said pawls in engagement with said registering devices, a movable frame arranged to govern said means, a spring for holding said frame in one position, and mechanism for moving said frame against the tension of the spring.

After the preliminary statements were filed, both parties filed motions to dissolve. Appellee based his motion on an alleged irreg