Syllabus

scope of the proviso in the act of April 9, 1935, and precludes his right to recover.

In the light of the proviso limiting the payment of rental allowances, plaintiff was actually furnished without cost public quarters for the occupancy of himself and his dependents, and his situation is no different than had he been ordered to duty at an Army post and assigned quarters by the commanding officer of the post. Having been reimbursed the amount he was required to pay for rental of quarters during the period he was detailed to duty in the Panama Canal, plaintiff is not entitled, under the act of April 9, 1935, to recover an additional amount as rental allowances for that period, and the petition will have to be, and is hereby, dismissed.

It is so ordered.

WHALEY, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; GREEN, Judge; and BOOTH, Chief Justice, concur.

JAMES V. MARTIN v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. E-446. Decided January 9, 1939]

On the Proofs

Patents; expert testimony.-Where no witness testified to that effect, and there is no direct testimony that the method in question involved only mechanical skill, but the evidence as a whole makes this conclusion manifest, direct testimony by an expert is not required in order to enable the court to reach a conclusion.

Same; landing wheel for aeroplanes.-Upon the evidence it is found that in a landing wheel for an aeroplane, it was on March 12, 1918, the date of plaintiff's application which matured into patent #1432771, issued to plaintiff on October 24, 1922, not new to have:

An outer rim and tire rotatable upon an inner part not rotatable;

A nonrotatable axle mounted in a guide slot so as to provide for a substantially vertical relative movement between the two nonrotatable parts;

The vertical movement resisted by elastic bands wrapped around portions of the two nonrotatable parts in such a manner as to permit a yielding under heavy loads or shocks;

Reporter's Statement of the Case

Rubber for the elastic material in the bands;

The shock-absorbing element placed within the side planes of the wheel, and while a shock absorber using elastic bands had not been so located, such an operation would naturally be suggested to those skilled in the art who wished to minimize the wind resistance of the wheel.

Same; shock absorbers.—Prior to the issuance of plaintiff's patent, in suit, there were two kinds of shock absorbers well known; one used springs located within the plane of the wheel, and the other rubber bands on the same general plan as that described in plaintiff's patent but located outside of the plane of the wheel; scientific journalists discussed the location of the shock absorbers within the planes of the wheel without reference to the type used, and this could be done with either type by those skilled in the art.

Same; claims held invalid.-Claims 1 and 2 of the patent of plaintiff are held to be invalid because of complete anticipation, and claims 3 and 4 for want of patentable novelty or invention over the prior practical, patented, and published art.

The Reporter's statement of the case:

Mr. Norman H. Samuelson for plaintiff. Mr. Theodore A. Hostetler was on the briefs.

Mr. Paul P. Stoutenburgh, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Sam E. Whitaker, for defendant. Messrs. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., and Frank H. Harmon were on the brief.

The court made special findings of fact as follows:

1. An aeroplane in order to take off from, or land upon, the ground is provided with a landing gear or mechanism comprising certain framework mounted on the lower part of the fuselage, which framework is provided with a pair of wheels. Such landing gear structure includes, as an essential element, mechanism for absorbing the shocks produced by the wheels contacting the ground in landing and the irregularities of the ground surface as the aeroplane traverses the same during the take-off, and the landing run.

2. On March 12, 1918, James V. Martin, the plaintiff in this case, filed in the United States Patent Office an application for letters patent entitled "Ground Wheels for Aeroplanes," the title of which was subsequently changed to

Reporter's Statement of the Case

"Wheel" by an amendment. This application matured into the patent in suit, United States Letters Patent #1432771, which was issued to the plaintiff on October 24, 1922. There is no satisfactory evidence of any date of invention prior to March 12, 1918, the filing date of the above referred to application. A copy of the file wrapper and the contents, defendant's exhibit 6, is by reference made a part of this finding.

3. The plaintiff, James V. Martin, is a citizen of the United States and was enrolled in the United States Naval Auxiliary Reserve on March 21, 1918, to February 7, 1920, during which period plaintiff was never ordered to active duty. From March 21, 1918, to January 2, 1920, plaintiff received retainer pay from the United States at the rate of $12.00 per annum. From February 1, 1919, until May 15, 1919, plaintiff served as a civilian employee in the service of the United States Government at McCook Field, Dayton, Ohio.

On May 7, 1919, plaintiff was ordered by the Division of Operations, United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, to take up his duties as Master of the S. S. Lake Fray, a vessel registered as follows: "The United States, represented by the United States Shipping Board, is the only owner of the vessel called the Lake Fray."

Plaintiff was paid as Master of the Lake Fray from May 8, 1919, to July 7, 1919, and from July 28, 1919, to January 7, 1920. The disbursements were made by the United Transportation Company, 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y., which managed and operated the vessel under agreements between that company and the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, such disbursements being charged to the account of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation.

4. Plaintiff was not in the employment or service of the United States Government at the time he invented the device covered by the patent in suit and filed the application for letters patent thereon, nor was he in such employment or service when the petition in this case was filed July 28,

Reporter's Statement of the Case

5. The patent in suit summarizes the problems involved in a wheel construction adapted for aeroplanes and the object of the invention in the following phraseology:

The ground wheels of an aeroplane are subjected to very severe lateral strains and to heavy shocks due to its coming into contact with the ground at high speeds, and much difficulty has been experienced in providing wheels sufficiently light for the purpose and yet having sufficient rigidity to withstand those strains, and also having the necessary resiliency to relieve both wheels and chassis from the severe shocks incident to landing. An object of this invention is to provide wheels for this purpose which, while they are light in weight and durable, have great strength to resist crushing and lateral strains and offer the maximum of resiliency to absorb shocks and to yieldingly support the chassis. A further object of the invention is to provide a construction wherein the wheels, upon coming into contact with the ground, may have an extended upward movement relative to the fixed chassis axle, thereby bringing the lateral thrust of the axle upon each wheel near the point at which it is in contact with the ground, and to provide certain other new and useful features in the construction and arrangement of parts, all as hereinafter more fully described and particularly pointed out in the appended claims, reference being had to the accompanying drawings.

The construction disclosed in the specific embodiment and as shown in the patent drawings, Figure 1 of which is reproduced herewith, comprises the following construction:

The wheel is comprised of a rotatable part provided with a suitable tire on its periphery, this rotatable part being carried by a non-rotatable part which is provided with a vertical guide slot. The axle structure of the wheel, which is specified in the claims as a second non-rotatable part, is mounted in the guide slot in such a manner that vertical relative movement may take place between the two nonrotatable parts.

Such vertical movement is resisted by wrapping a plurality of bands of elastic material around certain rounded parts carried by the axle structure and the non-rotatable portion of the wheel. These elastic bands thus suspend the entire weight of the axle and landing chassis from the upper portion of the non-rotatable wheel element.

The elastic bands are so proportioned that they will normally hold the axle in the upper part of the vertical slot against a stop, but will yield under heavy loads or shocks permitting the axle to move downwardly in its guiding slot relative to the wheel.

In the specific embodiment disclosed, the shock absorbing structure is located between the planes of the side faces of the wheel, a feature which decreases the wind resistance in this type of structure over one in which the shock absorbing elements are located outside of the wheel plane.