50. SAME METHOD OF PROCESSING DRIED FRUITS.-Certain claims for a method of processing dried fruits by treating them with an oil expressed from the seeds of like fruit Held unpatentable over the prior art. In re Forrest, 257. 51. SAME SHEET FEEDING APPARATUS.-Certain claims for a sheet feeding apparatus Held patentable over the prior art. *In re Johnson and Chalmers, 264. 52. SAME 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. *In re Eschholz, 272. 53. SAME MECHANICAL MOVEMENT.-Claims for a mechanical movement particularly adapted to imparting intermittent movement to the film of a motion-picture projector Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Ponderlicek, 275. 54. SAME GAS BURNER.-Claims for a structure for supplying additional air to the jets of a gas burner Held unpatentable to applicant since they are not readable upon his disclosure. *In re O'Dowd, 290. 55. SAME ROOFING MATERIALS.-Claims for a roofing material Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Fischer, 294. 56. SAME METHOD OF WALL CONSTRUCTION.-Claims for a method of wall construction Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Armbruster, 299. 57. SAME POWER-DISTRIBUTION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS.-Claims for a powerdistribution and control system providing for the energizing and de-energizing of specified load circuits by remote control from a central station Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re McDonald, 301. 58. SAME CENTRIFUGALLY-CONTROLLED VARIABLE-SPEED GEARING. Certain claims for a centrifugally-controlled variable-speed gearing Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Pitt, 304. 59. SAME RESERVOIR FOR WRITING FLUID.-Certain claims for a reservoir for writing fluid Held patentable over the prior art. *In re Dann, 306. 60. SAME REMOTE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR INCANDESCENT-ELECTRIC-LAMP CIRCUITS.-Claims for a remote control system for incandescent-electriclamp circuits Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re McDonald, 310. 61. CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION.-" The rule is that in construing the words of a claim where the language is susceptible of more than one construction, the disclosure of the specification must be resorted to to ascertain the proper construction." * In re Phelps and Carter, 312. 62. SAME SAME.-Claims for repair and reenforcing device for grooved 63. PATENTABILITY-REPAIR AND REENFORCING DEVICE FOR GROOVED SIDE 64. SAME POWER SHOVEL.-Claims for a power shovel Held unpatentable 65. SAME DUCTILE URANIUM.-Claims for ductile uranium and for electrodes, cathodes, and targets made thereof Held unpatentable since uranium is a product of nature and applicant is not entitled to a patent thereon nor upon any of its inherent natural qualities and the articles made thereof were not new articles unknown to the art. * In re Marden, 329. 66. SAME-OPERATIVENESS OF PRIOR PROCESSES IMMATERIAL.-Claims respectively for a mass of pure coherent homogeneous thorium, a wire, a filament, and an electrode made therefrom Held unpatentable since these articles were fully disclosed in the prior art and the question of the operativeness of the prior art methods is not involved in the determination of the patentability of the article claims. *In re Marden and Rentschler, 334. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS-Continued. 67. SAME ROOFING UNITS.-Claims for a roofing unit comprising a foundation strip provided with spaced vertical and horizontal guide lines Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Fischer, 338. 68, DOUBLE PATENTING.-Certain claims for an apparatus for feeding molten glass Held unpatentable since they are for the same invention as that claimed in applicant's prior patent. * In re Peiler, 342. 69. PATENTABILITY—PROCESS RELIEVED CONICAL TAPS.-Claims for a process of making relieved conical taps Held unpatentable over the prior art. In re Simmons, 351. * 70. SAME PROCESS OF PREPARING DUCTILE VANADIUM.-Certain claims for a process of preparing ductile vanadium Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Marden and Rich, 352. 71. SAME DUCTILE BODY OF VANADIUM.-Claims for a ductile body of vanadium Held unpatentable since the quality of purity of vanadium or its ductility is a quality of a natural product and not patentable. * Id. 72. SAME ADJUSTABLE WINDOW WEIGHT.-Claims for an adjustable window weight Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Schneider, 354. 73. SAME-ADJUSTABLE WINDOW WEIGHT.-Claims for an adjustable window weight Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Schneider, 356. 74. SAME HOSIERY DRYING AND SHAPING MACHINE-Claims for a hosiery drying and shaping machine Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Prosser, 358. 75. SAME METHOD OF MAKING RUBBER HEEL BLANKS.-A method of making rubber heel blanks Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Lavinthal, 359. 76. SAME BOILER WALL.-Claims for a boiler wall Held unpatentable as not involving invention over the prior art. In re Murray, 361. 77. SAME TRAWL DOOR.-Certain claims for a trawl door Held patentable over the prior art. * In re Symonds, 363. * 78. SAME COUPLING.-Claims for a coupling for a hosiery stretching and drying form Held patentable over the prior art. In re Prosser, 377. 79. SAME PASSENGER VEHICLE.-Claims for a passenger vehicle provided with independent means for holding each passenger on the seat Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Lord, 386. 80. SAME PECTIN-ARTICLE AND PROCESS OF MAKING.-Claims for a pectin and claims for the process of making the same Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Douglas, 388. 81. SAME FLEXIBLE ELECTRIC CONDUCTORS.-Claims for flexible electric conductors Held unpatentable as stating only an obvious use of a composition of matter covered by a patent granted to the applicant on a copending application. *In re Byck, 391. 82. SAME PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING CEMENT AND THE PRODUCT.-Claims for a process of manufacturing cement and for the product of such process Held unpatentable over the prior art. In re Nickel and Markwitz, 394. 83. SAME PORTABLE TYPEWRITER.-Claims for the combination with a portable typewriter of a base, a set of supporting legs, etc., Held unpatentable. In re Rowley, 396. 84. SAME PROCESS OF PRODUCING FELDSPATHIC FLUX FOR PORCELAIN,-A claim for a process of producing feldspathic flux for porcelain Held patentable over the prior art. * In re Peddrick, jr., and Lewis, 414. 85. SAME FOOD PRODUCT AND PROCESS OF MAKING.-Claims for a dry food product and a method of making the same Held unpatentable over prior art. * In re Anhaltzer, 427. 86. SAME CLAIMS FOR A DIRECTORY.-Claims for a directory having a part in which surnames are arranged in a particular manner Held unpatentable since the subject matter does not come within the provisions of the statute. * In re Russel, 430. 87. SAME SLEEVE VALVE AND SPECIFIC DRIVE THEREFOR.-Claims for an internal-combustion engine of the sleeve valve type comprising the combination of a sleeve valve and a specific drive therefor Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. *In re Spence and Bergen, CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS-Continued. 88. SAME REDUCING IRON OXIDE MATERIAL.-Claims for a process of reducing iron oxide material to metallic iron without melting Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Hornsey, 441. 89. SAME COUPLING FOR AN AIR CONNECTION.-Claims relating to a coupling in an air connection used in inflating rubber inner tubes during the curing process Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. *In re Bronson, 444. 90. SAME METHOD OF BURNING FINELY-DIVIDED FUEL.-Certain claims for a method of burning finely-divided fuel Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Leask and Dyer, 445. 91. SAME-PUMPING APPARATUS.-Claims for a pumping apparatus Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Jennings, 446. 92. SAME-DEPTH BOMB AND METHOD OF COMBATING SUBMARINES.-Claims for a depth bomb and claims for a method of combating submarines Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. *In re Hermans, 454. 93. SAME DEVICE FOR USE IN STORING VALVE INSIDES.-Claims relating to a device for storing valve insides Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. * In re Tobold, 462. 94. SAME-FUEL BURNERS.-Claims relating to improvements in fuel burners Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Peabody, 463. 95. SAME PORTABLE CRANE AND METHOD OF UNLOADING A SHIP.-Claims for a portable crane and for a method of unloading a ship on which such a crane is used Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Weeks, 465. 96. SAME SAME.-"Appellant's method invention lies in the steps described. These steps, in their patentable aspects, are the same whether applied in the tempering of only the tread surfaces of car wheels or in the tempering of the entire surfaces of metallic or steel castings. The one inventive idea was disclosed in the patent as fully, except in details not patentable, as it was, or is in the application." *In re Laughlin, 469. 97. SAME ENVELOPE FOR ROLLS OF MANGLES.-Certain claims for an envelope for rolls for mangles Held patentable over the prior art. In re Grube, 475. 98. SAME NAILING STRIPS.-Claims for a nailing strip intended to be used to hold flashing strips in constructing roofs Held unpatentable over the prior art. In re Stagg, 478. 99. SAME-VALVE GEAR.-Claims for a valve gear for a locomotive Held unpatentable over the prior art. *In re Purdy, 481. 100. SAME-MOVABLE SUPPORTS FOR CONNECTER HEADS OF TRAIN PIPE COUPLINGS.-Claims for an automatic train pipe connecter Held unpatentable since they are not patentably different from the claims of appellant's patent. In re Robinson, 483. 101. SAME GROUND ROD CLAMP.-Certain claims for a ground rod clamp Held patentable over the prior art. * In re Frank, 484. 102. SAME-RUSTPROOFING COMPOUND.-Claims for a rustproofing compound Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. In re Green and Jones, 487. 103. SAME METHOD OF DEVELOPING NEW OIL FIELDS.-Certain claims for a method of developing new oil fields Held patentable over the prior art. * In re Doherty, 493. 104. SAME MECHANISM FOR PRINTING A TRADE-MARK ON CARBON PAPER AND THE LIKE-Claims for a mechanism for printing a trade-mark upon carbon paper and the like Held unpatentable over the prior art. In re Hughes, 500. 105. SAME-OPERATIVES-METHOD OF PRODUCING ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE AND APPARATUS THEREFOR.-Claims for a method of producing electromotive force and for an apparatus for doing so Held unpatentable as based upon an inoperative disclosure. In re Perrigo, 512. 106. SAME METHOD OF MAKING A CONFECTION.-Claims for a method of making a confection Held unpatentable over the prior art. * In re Bach, 518. 107. SAME CHILD'S BIB.-Claims for a child's bib Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. In re Carlson, 519. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS-Continued. 108. SAME HEAT CONDUCTING TUBES.-Claims for an improvement in 109. SAME CATCH-BASIN TRAPS.-Claims for a catch-basin trap including 113. SAME WHEEL CONSTRUCTION.-Claims for a wheel construction Held 115. SAME-SURGICAL BANDAGES HAVING PULPIFIED EDGES.-Claims for a 119. SAME PROCESS OF FEEDING MOLTEN GLASS.-Certain claims for a 120. SAME TIRE RIM.-Claims for a tire rim Held unpatentable over the 121. SAME REVERSING GEAR MECHANISM.-Claims for a reversing gear 122. SAME MOTOR DRIVEN CAMERA.-Claims for a motor driven camera 124. SAME ELECTRICAL SWITCHES.-Claims for an electric switch Held 125. SAME METHOD OF CLEANING CASTINGS.-Claims for a method of clean- 126. SAME STABILIZING A LIGHTER-THAN-AIR CRAFT.-Claims for a mecha- 128. SAME-AUTOGRAPHIC REGISTER.-Claims for an autographic register CONSTRUCTION OF ISSUE. See Interference, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 35. CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND PATENTS-Continued. 1. INFRINGEMENT CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS-ESTOPPEL BY PROSECUTION."Where an applicant for a patent to cover a new combination is compelled by the rejection of his application by the Patent Office to narrow his claim by the introduction of a new element, he can not after the issue of the patent broaden his claim by dropping the element which he was compelled to include in order to secure his patent." Hannah M. Smith Administratrix of Estate of Owen P. Smith, deceased, v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc., and Shaughnessey, 716. 2. PATENTABILITY-HOUSING FOR CONVEYOR CARS AND TRACKS IN DOGRACING AMUSEMENT.-Patent for housing for conveyor cars and tracks relating to dog-racing amusement Held unpatentable over the prior art. Id. 3. SAME MACHINE FOR MAKING BOX BLANKS.-Claim 25 of patent for a machine for making box blanks Held invalid as involving only the application of mechanical skill to the development of a machine for carrying out the method described in the prior patent of the same applicants for the box blank. (Reissue No. 12,725) and hence an attempted extension of the monopoly of that patent. 8 Saranac Automatic Machine Corporation v. Wirebounds Patents Company et al., 720. 4. PATENTS INVENTION-QUESTION INVOLVED.-In determining the validity of the Langmuir patent for a discharge tube, "the question is not, as respondent argues, whether Lilienfeld or others made a practical high vacuum tube, but whether they showed how it could be made and demonstrated and disclosed the relationship of the discharge to reduced pressure, and how to reduce it." De Forest Radio Company v. General Electric Company, 734. 8 5. WHAT IS PATENTABLE." It is method and device which may be patented and not the scientific explanation of their operation." Id. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. See Applications, 1; Construction of Claims, 1; Construction of Specifications and Patents, 6; Patentability, 15; Reissues, 2; Suit sunder Section 4915 Revised Statutes, 1. 1. SECTION 4915, REVISED STATUTES-BILL DOES NOT LIE TO REVIEW DECISION DISSOLVING INTERFERENCE.-Where a bill in equity under the provisions of section 4915 Revised Statutes was filed to review a decision of the Board of Appeals in the Patent Office dissolving an interference Held that the bill should be dismissed since the court is without jurisdiction, there having been no final refusal of a patent within the meaning of the section. 8 Deshell Laboratories, Inc., v. E. R. Squibbs & Sons et al. and Thomas E. Robertson, Commissioner of Patents. 2. PATENTS APPEALS-SECTION 4911, REVISED STATUTES.-"We repeat that the words 'the decision,' as used in section 4911, mean a decision of the Board of Appeals rendered by it in the performance of the duties expressly conferred upon it by statute, and they do not include any decision rendered by it pursuant to any rule of the Patent Office conferring upon it a jurisdiction not expressly authorized by the statutes." *Sundback v. Blair and Perrault, 259. 3. STATUTES-SECTION 4915 REVISED STATUTES-NOT AVAILABLE TO PATENTEE DEFEATED IN INTERFERENCE.-Where in an interference involving a patent and an application, decision is rendered by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office adverse to the patentee, such patentee can not proceed by a suit under the provisions of section 4915 Revised Statutes. His only remedy to review the decision of the Board of Appeals is by appeal to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals or by suit under section 4918 Revised Statutes after the patent has issued to the other party. Heidbrink v. McKesson, 696. 4. MANUFACTURE-SECTION 31, TITLE 35, U. S. CODE (SEC. 4886 R. S.), CONSTRUED.—An orange, the rind of which has become impregnated with borax through immersion in a solution and thereby rendered resistant to blue mold decay, Held not a manufacture, or manufactured article, within the meaning of section 31, title 35, U. S. Ccde. American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Company, 711. |