4. A device of the class described including a hosiery-drying instrumentality twisted about its longitudinal axis. The references relied upon by the board are Anthony, 550,470, November 26, 1895; Pease, 568,874, October 6, 1896; Upp, 1,106,260, August 4, 1914; Collis, 1,114,966, October 27, 1914; Reeps, 1,464,539, August 14, 1923. Anthony and Collis were the references relied upon by the Examiner. We have very carefully considered the pertinency of the references and no useful purpose could be served by here describing and discussing them. It is sufficient to say that it is our opinion that the combined references disclose everything claimed or disclosed by applicant including the projection of the toe of the form outwardly. While it may be plausibly argued that no one reference discloses the entire disclosure of applicant, it is not thought that there was any patentable invention in taking certain features out of certain patents and combining them into another device. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the references cited fully and completely anticipate applicant's claimed invention and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed. [U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] IN RE LAVINTHAL No. 2,598. Decided March 31, 1931 410 O. G. 5; 47 F. (2d) 955 1. PATENTABILITY-PROCESS AND ARTICLE. It does not follow from the fact that an article is new and patentable that the process for making such article is also patentable. 2. SAME METHOD OF MAKING RUBBER HEEL BLANKS. A method of making rubber heel blanks Held unpatentable over the prior art. APPEAL from the Patent Office. Affirmed. Mr. H. C. Bierman for Lavinthal. Mr. T. A. Hostetler and Mr. Howard S. Miller for the Commissioner of Patents. HATFIELD, J.. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, in appellant's application for a patent for an alleged invention relating to a method of making rubber heel blanks. The claims are as follows: 1. A method of making rubber heel blanks which comprises placing a sheet of unvulcanized rubber composition in a mold, and vulcanizing under heat and pressure to form a unitary sheet having a plurality of heel blanks thereon. 2. A method of making rubber heel blanks which comprises placing a sheet of unvulcanized rubber composition in a two-part mold, and vulcanizing under heat and pressure to form a unitary sheet having a plurality of heel blanks thereon. 3. A method of making rubber heel blanks which comprises placing a sheet of unvulcanized rubber composition in a two-part mold, one of the parts having closely spaced heel blank cavities, and vulcanizing under heat and pressure to form a unitary sheet having a plurality of heel blanks thereon. 4. A method of making rubber heel blanks which comprises placing a sheet of unvulcanized rubber composition in a two-part mold, one of the parts having closely spaced heel blank cavities, and vulcanizing under heat and pressure to form a unitary sheet having a plurality of heel blanks thereon, said heel blanks projecting up from one side of said sheet. 5. A method of making rubber heel blanks which comprises placing a sheet of unvulcanized rubber composition in a two-part mold, one of the parts having closely spaced heel blank cavities, and vulcanizing under heat and pressure to form a unitary sheet having a plurality of heel blanks thereon, said heel blanks projecting up from both sides of said sheet. The references are: Schweinert et al., 1,177,902, April 4, 1916; Lewis, 1,255,099, January 29, 1918. Appellant's application discloses a method of manufacturing a plurality of shoe heel blanks from a sheet of unvulcanized rubber composition in a two-part mold. The method is stated concisely in the involved claims. The patent to Schweinert et al., discloses a method for the manufacture of sheets of rubber washers in a two-part mold, and applying them to valves. The patentees stated in their specification that it was better to partially vulcanize the sheets of washers in the molds and to finish the vulcanizing process when the washers had been attached to the valve mechanisms. The patent to Lewis discloses a process for manufacturing sheets of rubber articles. The process is not limited to any particular article. We quote from the patent: An object of the invention is to provide an improved method of molding rubber goods, which involves applying a layer of uncured rubber to the peripheral face of a drum, which is provided with a plurality of shallow molds separated by relatively thin dividing walls, in applying pressure by windings of fabric, wire, or the like to the layer to force it into the molds, and in vulcanizing the rubber while thus held to the drum, the method being particularly characterized in that the layer of uncured rubber is heavily scored on its under face only as it is forced into said molds. In affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner, the Board of Appeals said: This application discloses a method of manufacturing sheets of multiple shoe heels of rubber. A sheet of sufficient thickness to form shoe heels is laid over and pressed into a multiple cavity mold plate, each cavity being of proper shape to mold one shoe heel. The molded sheet is then vulcanized in the multiple cavity mold. The thickness of the sheet of rubber is such as to finally leave a thin web of rubber extending over all the cavities, which web serves to connect all the molded heels in a convenient way for handling and shipping as a group. Within the past few years the rubber heel industry has grown to be an important part of the rubber industry and it is shown by applicant in the record that sheets of connected rubber heels as prepared by his method are regarded as an advance in the art. As to this contention the question is presented, however, whether the actual invention is not fully represented by the article a sheet of connected heels claimed elsewhere-rather than by a process of molding. After careful consideration we find the method considered as a series of steps and as broadly set forth to be identical with the same steps disclosed in Schweinert and in Lewis. Lewis presses a sheet of rubber onto and into a multiple cavity mold by pressure applied to the rubber sheet. He vulcanizes it there and provides enough rubber so that all the articles are connected by a thin web into a self-sustaining sheet of articles. The articles produced are bodies for the tire patches and they are afterward to be separated into individual articles for use. They are flat articles not greatly different in form from a shoe heel. It is immaterial that an adhesive layer is afterward placed on the back of the sheet by Lewis. Schweinert follows the same series of broad steps. The limitation in claim 5 that the heels project partly on both sides up from the sides of the connecting sheet is considered to be a matter of choice of design not involved in the method. It may be, as argued by counsel for appellant, that the claimed method of manufacturing rubber heels has greatly reduced the cost of manufacture and is, therefore, commercially successful. However, we are of opinion that the involved method was fully disclosed in the references and that appellant has done nothing more than to apply an old method to the manufacture of rubber shoe heels. apply [1] Our attention has been called to the fact that appellant has been issued a patent for "heel-blank sheets" produced by the involved process. It is argued that, as appellant has produced a new and patentable article, he is entitled to a patent for the process by which that article is manufactured. We are unable to agree with counsel for appellant in this respect. [2] All that was necessary for appellant to do, and, in our opinion, all that he did do, in order to produce rubber shoe heels by the process disclosed in the references, was to design two-part molds of the size and shape desired. The old process, functioning substantially as it did in the references, has been put to a new use and has produced a new product. In view of these facts, appellant is not entitled to a patent for the involved process. Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 10 O. G. 417; Lovell Mfg. Co. v. Carey, 147 U. S. 623, 62 O. G. 1821; In re Braselton, 51 App. D. C. 31, 273 Fed. 759, 288 O. G. 431. We concur in the views expressed by the Board of Appeals and its decision is affirmed. Affirmed. [U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] IN RE MURRAY No. 2,643. Decided March 31, 1931 410 O. G. 6; 48 F. (2d) 429 PATENTABILITY-BOILER WALL. Claims for a boiler wall Held unpatentable as not involving invention over the prior art. APPEAL from the Patent Office. Affirmed. Messrs. Usina & Rauber and Messrs. Milans & Milans and Mr. Benjamin T. Rauber for Murray. Mr. T. A. Hostetler for the Commissioner of Patents. GARRETT, J.: The patent here sought is for alleged improvements in boiler structure. There are two claims at issue, Nos. 5 and 6, which read as follows: 5. A boiler wall structure of the character described comprising a multiplicity of rolled structural channel beams arranged flange to flange alongside one another and having separately formed U-shaped caps united to the edges of the channel flanges and nipples in the flanges of the channels adapted to establish communication between the chambers formed by said members. 6. A boiler wall structure of the character described comprising a multiplicity of rolled structural beams each having a rigid web and integral flanges substantially perpendicular thereto and separately formed caps united to the edges of the flanges and nipples establishing communication between the chambers formed by said members. The claims were rejected by the Examiner whose decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office. Appeal was then taken to this court. The references to prior art cited are: McClellon, 764,753, July 12, 1904; McClellon, 963,627, July 5, 1910; Murray, 1,186,222, June 6, 1916. In its decision the board said: Claims 5 and 6 are objectionable for the reason that they involve the limitation of an article claim by the method of making it. The article, as claimed, differs from the boiler fire wall disclosed in the patents to McClellon only in the fact that the tubes are made by welding together at their edges two forms of rolled structural material, such as a channel bar and a semitubular section. When so welded together the tube is no different from one which is formed from a tube having its sides flattened to produce abutting surfaces when brought together to form the fire wall. Such tubes are used in McClellon No. 963,627 (see page 1, lines 83 to 85) and it is stated in No. 764,753 that the tubes 12 may be made of various shapes in cross-sectional contour though it is preferred that this be square exteriorly. (See page 3, lines 11 to 14.) If a claim were drawn to the method of making a tube by welding together the edges of two rolled structural elements it would be met by appellant's Patent No. 1,186,222, cited by the Examiner. may assume It is observed that McClellon in Patent No. 764,753 discloses a locomotive boiler with flat sided water tubes composing the sides of the fire box. The specifications state that the tubes various shapes in cross-sectional contour, although I prefer the tubes that are square exteriorly." A figure of the drawings shows tubes which are square both exteriorly and interiorly. McClellon's Patent No. 963,627 is for a fire box for boilers which shows sections having curved sides joined by flattened sides. These are fitted together to form the walls. Nipples are shown which permit the water freely to circulate through the connected sections. The reference patent to Murray relates to a method of electrical welding. In view of the fact that the claims in the present case do not mention welding this reference is not thought to have any particular pertinency here, but we are unable to see any error in the holding of the Board of Appeals which, in effect, is that appellant's tubes, when finished by having the separately formed U-shaped caps united to the edges of the channel flanges, do not present any differences of a patentable nature from McClellon's tubes flattened to produce abutting surfaces. The decision of the board is, therefore, affirmed, Affirmed. [U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] IN RE SYMONDS No. 2,649. Decided March 31, 1931 410 O. G. 7; 47 F. (2d) 972 PATENTABILITY-TRAWL DOOR. Certain claims for a trawl door Held patentable over the prior art. APPEAL from the Patent Office. Mr. H. W. Kenway for Symonds. Modified. Mr. T. A. Hostetler and Mr. Howard S. Miller for the Commissioner of Patents. GARRETT, J.: In this appeal is involved the right of appellant to a patent on five claims numbered 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11, for improvements in trawl doors." The claims being rejected by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office, by an affirmance of the decision of the Examiner, appeal was taken to this court. Two claims numbered 6 and 7 seem to have been allowed by the Examiner, and are not before us. The alleged invention relates to doors such as are used for keeping the mouths of trawl nets open, and the principal feature here involved appears to be that of a door reversible in the sense that it can be readily adapted for use either as the right-hand or the left-hand door of a pair. The claims read as follows: 3. A trawl door comprising a body portion having provisions for attaching a net thereto at either of its ends, and towing connections located on the front face of the body portion, said connections being reversible with respect to the ends of the door. 8. A trawl door comprising a body portion, a reinforcing structure secured to its back face, a towing bracket located on the front face of the body portion and connected through the latter to the reinforcing structure, said towing bracket being reversible with respect to the ends of the door, and provisions for attaching a net to the door at either of its ends. 9. A trawl door comprising a body portion, a reinforcing structure secured to its back face and extending to each of the four corners thereof, a towing bracket located on the front face of the body portion and connected through the latter to the reinforcing structure, said towing bracket being reversible with respect to the ends of the door, and provisions for attaching the net to the reinforcing structure at either of its ends. 10. A trawl door comprising a body portion, a reinforcing structure secured to its back face and including longitudinally-extending members located between the center line of the body portion and its upper and lower edges respectively, and diagonal members diverging towards adjacent corners of the body portion, means for attaching a net to the diagonal members, and towing connections located on the front face of the body portion and attached directly to the longitudinal members of the reinforcing structure by connections passing through the body portion. 11. A trawl door provided with a shoe consisting of a metal plate attached at its upper edge to the lower edge of the door and having a cross-sectional curvature such that the greater portion of the shoe is located behind the rear face of the door, with its convex side presented to the direction of the forward movement of the door. 80349°-32-25 |