parts" joined by the bosses, which joining makes the same "resiliently yieldable," may be said to be the chief part of both structures. Unless the parts of the piston which engage the cylinder are made to yield in opposite directions the very purpose of the invention would fail, and since we are to hereinafter hold that both disclosures have the "resiliently yieldable" feature, we think appellant's first contention can not be sustained. The main contention of appellant, and the chief subject matter in controversy in this long and hotly contested interference, is that Gulick's structure does not contain in its means for joining the cylinder engaging parts a resilient yieldability. On this question the tribunals of the Patent Office concur in holding that Gulick's disclosure does show such resilient yieldability and that he can make the claim. This part of the issue in this case was before the Patent Office tribunals in an interference case between Gulick and Long. Long contended that Gulick's construction was rigid and could not operate to permit free expansion and contraction of the skirt portion. The Law Examiner held that the flanges or ribs 17 and 18 must allow such expansion, and it is not material for the present purpose whether they move about one end or are slightly flexed laterally Upon appeal to the Examiners in Chief they said: If the webs 17, 18 were so rigid that they would not yield laterally, the slot would have no function. Upon appeal to the Commissioner, he said: The material of which both types of pistons are made will readily yield to the small extent required to bring the piston skirt to the proper diameter * Then upon appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, speaking for the court, said "We think it clear that the object of the split is to permit of this expansion and that Gulick had the right to make the claim "beyond question." Long v. Gulick, 57 App. D. C. 98, 17 F. (2d) 686, 360 Ó. G. 262. The claim there at issue, while somewhat different from the count at bar, called for a split skirt "to permit free expansion and contraction of the skirt portion." That Hartog's piston skirt has more flexibility than Gulick's and that the elements responsible for such flexibility in Hartog differ materially from the elements responsible for it in Gulick can not be denied. Hartog in argument and brief contends that the meaning of the count should be construed in connection with his specifications since the count came from Hartog's application, and that when so construed the particular springy flexibility of the Hartog structure is what is meant by the count and that the less resilient and almost rigid structure of Gulick is not described by the terms of the count. It seems from this line of argument that Hartog seeks to read into the count things suggested by the specification but which are not embraced within the language of the count when given its ordinary meaning. [1] The law on this question, we think, is pretty well settled. Counts of an issue of an interference are to be interpreted as broadly as the language will reasonably permit. Stern v. Schroeder, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 690, 36 F. (2d) 518, 393 O. G. 4. But express limitations in the counts can not be ignored. In re Bijur, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1134, 40 F. (2d) 999, 398 O. G. 355. Nor can details. of structure be read into a count from a consideration of the disclosure when the language used in the count, if given its broadest meaning, does not reasonably embrace the subject matter. Podlesak and Podlesak v. McInnerney, 123 O. G. 1989, 1906 C. D. 265. [2] It seems clear to us that if the slot in the skirt of the Gulick piston takes care of expansion, it is by reason of the fact that the cylinder engaging portions of the skirt flex or yield, which yielding or flexing must necessarily result, at least in part, from the resiliency of the joining means. We conclude that Gulick had the right to make the claim. That Gulick should be regarded as the prior inventor of the subject matter of the count, if he had the right to make the claim, has not been seriously denied in this court. The decision of the Board of Appeals, awarding priority of the subject matter involved in this appeal to Gulick, is affirmed. Affirmed. [U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] No. 2,609. Decided February 25, 1931 408 O. G. 589; 47 F. (2d) 367 PRIORITY-RIGHT TO MAKE THE CLAIMS. Record reviewed and Held that G is entitled to make the claim in issue, that he was not estopped by reason of a decision in a prior interference, and that priority was properly awarded to him. APPEAL from the Patent Office. Affirmed. Mr. Wm. L. Symons and Messrs. Bacon & Thomas for Hartog. Mr. Wm. C. McCoy, Mr. Jas. A. Hoffman, and Messrs. Evans & McCoy for Gulick. BLAND, J.: This appeal is from a decision of the Board of Appeals in the Patent Office awarding priority of invention in a single count to Edward J. Gulick in which the appellant and Elmer C. Long were parties. From the decision of the Board Hartog appealed here and Long did not. The count in issue, which was taken from the Hartog application, is as follows: 1. A piston comprising a head and body, internal yielding ribs supporting the head and body, and means on said ribs adapted to form engaging connection with operable parts for said piston. [Italics appellant's.] The issue in this case involves the same invention and the same applications and substantially the same question as was involved in Hartog v. Long and Gulick, patent appeal No. 2,608, interference No. 49,569, decided concurrently herewith, 18 C. C. P. A. Patents 993, 408 O. G. 587, and we follow the reasoning of that case in the decision of this one. The invention relates to an automobile piston, the apron of which is made flexible or resilient in order that it may yield from the pressure occasioned by expansion due to heat. The details of the disclosures need not be repeated here. This interference originally was between several different parties and progressed in the Patent Office concurrently with Hartog v. Long and Gulick, interference No. 49,569, supra. There are but two questions presented: First, had Gulick the right to make the count? Second, is Gulick estopped from making the count of this interference by reason of the decision in Hartog v. Pomeroy, interference No. 45,351? The first question is, as found by the Board, "the most important point in the whole series of interferences." In determining whether Gulick had the right to make the count the crux of the whole question is the yieldable feature of the ribs of the two disclosures. In the instant case we think Gulick's disclosure meets the requirement of the claim in the phrase "internal yielding ribs supporting the head and body' " for the same reasons that we concluded that his disclosure met the requirements of the phrase "being resiliently yieldable" in the count of the interference No. 49,569, supra. We approve the finding of the Board of Appeals, which is expressed in the following language: As previously stated, we find nothing in Gulick's file in regard to the question of resiliency. It is perfectly clear, however, that when the piston skirt was split it was for the purpose of allowing it to yield when the heat caused the piston to expand. If the piston expands and the skirt does not, we consider that the support for the skirt must necessarily be resilient and that this is an inherent quality of all pistons of this general nature. We therefore concur in the opinion of the Law Examiner as referred to in the opinion of the Examiner of Interferences that Gulick has a right to make the count. The case of Long v. Gulick, 17 F. (2d) 686, 57 App. D. C. 98, 360 O. G. 262, decided by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia and referred to by this court in Hartog v. Long and Gulick, interference No. 49,569, supra, passed upon an issue almost identical with the issue presented here by the first question raised. As to the second question presented we also agree with the finding of the Board, which is expressed in the following language: Reference has also been made in the brief to the interference of Hartog v. Pomeroy, No. 45,351, but for reasons discussed in connection with the other interferences to which our attention has been called, we hold that the ruling in that interference is not binding upon us in this appeal. Hartog raises the question of estoppel and refers to prior interferences in which he contends the same parties in interest were involved. We fail to find any proof to substantiate this contention. Hartog suggests that Gulick can not make the claim for the reason that he is barred from doing so by reason of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, arising from the fact that there was a community of interest or ownership of the subject matter of the interference in Hartog v. Pomeroy, supra, and the subject matter of the interference in the instant case. We find nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that such a community of interest exists as is suggested by appellant. The Board of Appeals properly awarded priority of invention in the subject matter of the count involved in this interference to Gulick over Long and Hartog and affirmatively found that We have carefully considered the decision of the Examiner of Interferences on this point and concur in his decision in holding that the evidence offered did not show conclusively that Long had established a date of conception prior to Gulick's filing date. The decision of the Board of Appeals, awarding priority of invention to Gulick, is affirmed. Affirmed. [U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] IN RE ESCHHOLZ No. 2,583. Decided February 3, 1931; modified on rehearing May 25, 1931 408 O. G. 590, 46 F. (2d) 704 PATENTABILITY-OIL COOLING TANK FOR ELECTRICAL APPARATUS. Certain claims for the combination of an oil cooling tank for electrical apparatus and means to deoxidize the space in the tank above the oil Held patentable over the prior art. APPEAL from the Patent Office. Modified. Mr. Wesley G. Carr, Mr. Franklin E. Hardy, and Mr. J. Baily Brown for Eschholz. Mr. T. A. Hostetler and Mr. Howard S. Miller for the Commissioner of Patents. GARRETT, J.: A large number of claims of appellant, Eschholz, were appealed to this court from an adverse decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office which was in affirmance of prior decision of the Examiner. In his brief, appellant withdrew his appeal as to certain of them. During the oral argument others were withdrawn, and, following the argument, counsel for appellant filed a statement in writing, addressed to this court, from which we quote the following: This will confirm the oral statement made by counsel during the argument of the above noted case to-day to the effect that applicant relies upon claims 12, 20, 21, and 23 of this appeal. The other claims are withdrawn because it is believed that the said above noted claims adequately cover the invention. Since the claims are brief they are here set out in full: 12. The combination with a casing for electrical apparatus adapted to be immersed in insulating liquid, and a space above said liquid for inert gas, of a liquid seal for isolating said space from the atmosphere under predetermined conditions and for permitting communication therebetween under other conditions, and means for removing oxygen from such air as may enter the tank through the liquid seal. 20. In combination, a tank, an insulating oil contained in the tank, electrical apparatus contained in the tank immersed in said oil, an atmosphere above the oil within the tank, a deoxidizing agent in contact with the atmosphere for coacting with oxygen in said atmosphere to produce a hygroscopic oxide, thus producing an inert and substantially dry atmosphere within said tank. 21. In combination, a tank, an insulating oil contained in the tank, electrical apparatus contained in the tank immersed in said oil, a gaseous blanket above the oil comprising an atmosphere sealed within the tank, a deoxidizing agent in contact with said atmosphere for removing the oxygen therefrom, whereby the deterioration of the oil and the formation of an explosive mixture above the oil is prevented. 23. The combination with a casing partially filled with a liquid medium and containing an overlying gaseous medium, and an electrical device submerged in said liquid medium, of means comprising a deoxidizing agent for removing oxygen from said gaseous medium. The claimed invention relates to the "operation and protection of large electrical apparatus, such as transformers and circuit breakers." Appellant discloses a transformer tank containing a body of insulating and cooling oil. The tank has a cover around the outside of which there is provided a circumferential liquid seal to permit "breathing" between the air space above the oil and the atmosphere outside of the transformer tank under certain described conditions. In the tank cover there is a manhole which also has a cover. To the latter cover is secured a receptacle which is designed to contain a deoxidizing agent, such as phosphorus, to remove the oxygen from such air as may be within the transformer casing, and, when converted to phosphorous pentoxide, to absorb such moisture as may be contained in the atmosphere. The references cited are: Blanchard, 96,371, November 16, 1869; Wallace et al., 1,154,145, September 21, 1915; Green, 1,326,049, December 23, 1919; Hauser, 1.534,448, April 21, 1925. The claims specifically held by the tribunals of the Patent Office to be anticipated solely by Blanchard are among those withdrawn. The Examiner rejected claim 12 "on Green and Wallace in connection with Hauser," while claims 20, 21, and 23 were "technically rejected as not supported by the disclosure," the Examiner in his statement saying: These claims recite an electrical device as an element of the combination. No such device is shown in the drawing and the object of the invention is stated to be to provide a tank adapted to contain electrical apparatus. Although it may be permissible to amplify the disclosure to show electrical apparatus it is believed that this group of claims would then be rejectible on the references now in the case. Of these latter the Board said: The Examiner has objected to the reference to electrical devices in some of the claims whereas none is shown in the drawings. While this is not believed to be patentably important in view of the state of the art, still for the purpose of complying with the rules and thereby maintaining accuracy in practice the heading of claims 20, 21, and 23 should be made like claim 4 or sonre diagrammatic showing added to the drawing, preferably the former. * * With these eliminations, corrections, etc., made the gist of the matter before us, as expressed in the quoted claims, remains, as stated by the Board: This application discloses attachments for the oil filled casings for high tension switches and transformers for rendering the gas in the expansion space above the oil inert, by removing all oxygen and moisture therefrom. This is accomplished in this instance by providing means to hold a quantity of chemical such as phosphorus which has an affinity for oxygen and indirectly for moisture at ordinary temperatures. The Board then stated the prior art disclosed this matter, saying: In the patent to Green an atmosphere of dehydrated nitrogen is provided, which may fluctuate between the free space and a gas holder. No natural atmosphere is allowed to enter, |