good stead. Some idea of the vast amount of work required in handling these cases may be obtained when it is taken into consideration that in one case alone and a division thereof, a sum total of over thirteen hundred claims were acted upon. Many of these cases after a most lengthy and thoroughly thrashed out prosecution were finally rejected. In a single day, twenty appeals were filed from the action of the Primary Examiner. Besides these, numerous petitions required attention from time to time. There is no doubt but that the physical disabilities which annoyed him constantly, were considerably aggravated by the unremitting toil.

Proof of his sound judgment as displayed in the handling of these cases is not wanting as evidenced in the decision of Mr. Chief Justice Shepard in In Re Luten, 32 App. D. C., 599; 143 O. G. 1110. This case was one acted upon by Mr. Cowles, and appealed thru the Patent Office. In rendering his decision Justice Shepard quoted Mr. Cowles actions extensively and commented upon them in very favorable terms as follows: "We must confess to being strongly impressed with the reasoning of the Primary Examiner on the general question of patentability, in view of the common knowledge of the art, and the descriptions of former bridge constructions contained in the several publications referred to by him. But we are of the opinion that consideration of that question is precluded by the decision subsequent to his. The conclusions of the Examiner was denied, and as a consequence, six of the claims denied by him have been allowed, and a patent containing them will be granted, no matter wha may be the result of this appeal, for we have no jurisdiction to review the decision as to them. We are con strained, therefore, to confine our consideration to the question whether the applicant is to be limited to claims based on an entire concrete construction, where a portion of the spandrel is integrally formed with the arch. We do not agree with the two last tribunals which substantially held that the description of the invention is confined to a bridge constructed wholly of plastic material. We

agree with the Primary Examiner that it makes no difference in contemplating a "method" of what material the arch is made; and we likewise think it makes no difference of what material the spandrel is made.

Without going into the question of the patentable novelty of any of the claims in view of the references to the prior art, we are of the opinion that the conclusion in respect of the six claims that were allowed warranted the allowance of all of the others. Upon that ground and for that reason alone, we are constrained to reverse the decision as to the first nineteen claims the allowance of which is the only question for determination."

CLEMENT ROYER.

OF GENERAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

Division 33 is pleased to announce the marriage on November 20, 1926 of its stenographer, Miss Ethel V. Collom to Mr. Hugh E. Riley, junior examiner. The Division cannot confess to being taken totally by surprise, since it was evident to a discerning eye that an intradivisional affiliation was under contemplation. The Division must, however, confess to much pleasure at the new arrangement and now officially extends its congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. George T. Craig, a junior examiner in Division 37, resigned November 22, 1926. Mr. Craig, who was appointed November 10, 1924, from Pennsylvania, had been examining Class 200, Circuit Makers and Breakers. He is a graduate in Electrical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, and is going to practice patent law in this city with the General Motors Co.

Mr. Donald E. Payne, a junior examiner in Division 6, resigned November 25, 1926. Mr. Payne was appointed June 27, 1924, from Idaho, and has been examining Class 23, Inorganic Chemistry. He has taken the degree of B. S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Idaho and has had two and one-half years in law at the George Washington University. He is going with the Fansteel Products Co., of Chicago, Ill.

Mr. Harry F. Rueth, Assistant Chief of the Manuscript and Photolithographic Division, resigned his position on November 18, to accept a position with the firm of Marks & Clerk, of Washington, D. C., where he will take up matters pertaining to the filing of foreign applications.

Mr. Rueth entered the Patent Office in April 1902 as a messenger boy. He was later assigned to the Financial Clerk's office, serving for twenty years as bookkeeper, and then as assistant cashier. In February, 1925, Mr. Rueth was made assistant chief of the Manuscript Division.

Mr. Lester H. Kincaid, a junior examiner in Division 8, resigned December 3, 1926. Mr. Kincaid was appointed August 18, 1924, from West Virginia, and has been examining Class 45, Furniture. He is a graduate of the University of West Virginia with the degree of B. S. in Chemical Engineering, and is going with the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., of Akron, Ohio.

Mr. Ralph Van Neste, a junior examiner in Division 36, resigned November 29, 1926. Mr. Van Neste was appointed December 8, 1924 from Massachusetts and has been examining parts of Classes 73, 33, and 265, Measur

ing Instruments. He is going with the Firestone Plantations Company to Liberia, West Africa, as civil engineer in the rubber plantations.

Mr. Addison A. Armstrong, a junior examiner in Division 26, resigned November 30, 1926. Mr. Armstrong, who was appointed March 16, 1924, from Pennsylvania, had been examining Class 171, Electricity Power Generation. He is a graduate in electrical engineering from the Drexel Institute, and in going to Paris, France, to engage in patent practice.

Mr. James S. Stewart, an assistant examiner in Division 9, resigned November 30, 1926. Mr. Stewart, who was appointed July 5, 1922, from Massachusetts, had been examining Class 103, Pumps. He is going to New Haven, Conn. to practice patent law.

Mr. E. T. Morgan, Primary Examiner of Division 52 and Mrs. Morgan, who have recently moved to their new home on Bellevue Terrace, were the recipients of a surprise house-warming party given by members of Mr. Morgan's Division on the evening of Nov. 8. Refreshments were provided by the visitors and the evening was enjoyably spent in dancing.

Mr. Adlai S. Coble, a junior examiner in Division 30, resigned Dec. 2, 1926. Mr. Coble was appointed Aug. 25, 1924, from Connecticut and had been examining Class 240, Illumination. He is a graduate of Cornell with the degree of M. E.

Mr. Fred J. Harbaugh, an assistant examiner in Div. 51, resigned from the Office January 2, 1927. Mr. Harbaugh was appointed June 19, 1922 from Ohio. He received the degree of E. E. at Ohio State University and being assigned to Div. 51 has been examining applications in Class 250-subclass 20, Radio Receiving Circuits. Mr. Harbaugh is going with the Atwater Kent Manufacturing Co. of Philadelphia, Pa.

OBITUARIES.

Elida C. Hough

Asso. Examiner Elida C. Hough, who, for more than thirty-eight years, was a member of the examining force of the Patent Office, died at his home in Falls Church, Va., on the morning of December 9, 1926, after an illness of four months. Mr. Hough, who with his fine physique and exemplary habits seemed destined for a long life, succumbed to that dread malady, cancer, which has taken such a heavy toll from the examining force of the Patent Office.

Mr. Hough was born, February 7, 1863, in the beautiful village of Lowville, New York, where the dignified old colonial home still stands, his parents being very highly respected residents of that community. His father, Franklin B., was educated as a physician but became interested in forestry, was appointed the first head of the forestry division of the Department of Agriculture and is often referred to as the father of American forestry. His son, Romeyn B., was also recognized in that science, and Elida's son, Philip R., specialized in forestry at Cornell and has been identified with forestry work.

Examiner Hough graduated from Cornell in 1885, receiving the degree of A. B., and was appointed in the Patent Office February 14, 1888, at the age of twenty