Stress, however, is laid upon the fact that in the applicant's device the thermostat is located beyond the outlet-valve in the path of the radiator discharge and subject to the temperature of the atmosphere outside of the car. This point is conclusively disposed of by the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, as follows: The patent to McElroy (April 7, 1908), discloses a car heating system in which the inlet and outlet valves are operated by a thermostat which is located beyond the outlet valve in the path of the radiator discharge and subject to the temperature of the atmosphere outside of the car. It is believed that claims 4 and 5 set forth nothing which is inventive in view of Weber, taken in connection with McElroy. The applicant points out that the McElroy patent alone does not satisfy these claims but this does not invalidate the same as a reference. The question is whether the addition to the Weber construction of the special features above mentioned which are disclosed by McElroy would amount to invention. We find no basis for the conclusion that it would. Applicant has attempted to overcome the ruling of this court in the Egbert H. Gold case by some additional affidavits as to Weber's patent and his claims as distinguished from the claims before us, in that Weber did not have in mind an interconvertible system. This is not important. A patentee who is the first to make an invention is entitled to his claim for all the uses and advantages which belong to it. (Stow v. Chicago, C. D., 1882, 131; 21 O. G., 790; 104 U. S., 547.) It was also said in Roberts v. Ryer (C. D., 1876, 439; 10 O. G., 204; 91 U. S., 150) that It is no new invention to use the old machine for a new purpose. The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not. The tribunals below were unanimous in holding the claims anticipated by the Weber patent. The issue here is not substantially different from the case of in re Gold, supra, where we held the Egbert H. Gold claim anticipated by the Weber structure as disclosed in the Jersey City test. The decision in that case must be held as controlling here. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed. [Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.] NECKERMAN v. SAUNDERS. Decided January 9, 1917. 239 O. G., 322; 46 App. D. C., 10. 1. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY-REDUCTION TO PRACTICE. Where N. relied on his record date, priority was awarded to S., who reduced the invention stated in the issue to practice in an operative machine prior to N.'s record date. 2. SAME-SAME-AUXILIARY DEVICES-NOT IN ISSUE. Where S., having successfully operated the invention stated in issue prior to March 30, 1910, subsequently conceived an additional device, a holddown, to which claims not included in the interference have been allowed, N.'s contention that there would be no reduction to practice without the addition of the holddown is overruled. Since the holddown is not an element of the issue, the successful operation of a machine equipped as the S. machine was equipped prior to the addition of the holddown device constituted reduction to practice of the claims of the issue. (For Commissioner's decision see ante, 45; 239 O. G., 319.) Mr. C. P. Byrnes and Mr. G. H. Parmelee for the appellant. ROBB, J.: Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding in which priority of invention was awarded Saunders. The invention relates to a pipe-drawing apparatus and is expressed in four counts, of which we reproduce the 1st and 4th: 1. In a pipe-drawing apparatus, a draw-bench, an endless draw chain having travel thereon, a welding die, skelp-engaging tongs, and one or more forked dogs having endless travel with the draw chain and adapted to engage the end of said tongs while the chain is traveling and pull the skelp through the welding die. 4. Pipe drawing apparatus having tongs by which the pipe skelp is gripped and drawn through the welding bell comprising a draw bench having an endless chain thereon, means for continuously driving the chain, and means automatically engaging with the tong reins adapted to grapple with the reins when the tongs are placed in position on the draw-bench and draw skelp in the grip of the tongs lengthwise over the draw-bench. The Examiner of Interferences thus describes the prior art and the invention of the issue: In the process of pipe-drawing, a strip of metal heated in the furnace and known as a skelp, is drawn through a die into the hollow cylindrical form of the finished pipe. The drawing apparatus, old in the art, comprised a drawbench with one end adjacent the furnace containing the heated skelp, an endless chain having travel upon the draw bench, and the welding die adjacent the furnace end of the bench and through which the skelp is drawn. Tongs are attached to the skelp, the reins of which are, in turn, attached to the draw chain, and thereby the skelp is drawn through the die until the complete pipe is formed. Heretofore, the end of the tong rein was manually attached to the endless chain on the draw-bench by an attendant. The object of the present invention is to provide an automatic attaching means so as to dispense with the operator performing this duty. This automatic means, as disclosed in the applications of both parties, comprises forked dogs upon the draw-chain arranged in position to engage the button upon the end of the tong rein and in the continued travel of the chain to exert the pulling action upon the tongs necessary to draw the skelp through the die. Since Neckerman has taken no testimony, he is restricted to his filing date of December 14, 1910. Saunders is one of the superintendents of the National Tube Company and highly skilled in the art. He introduced evidence which satisfied the Examiner of Interferences of a disclosure and reduction to practice of the invention in the spring of 1910. The Examinersin-Chief, after ruling that the first three claims are satisfied by the device which Saunders built and operated and which the Examiner of Interferences ruled amounted to a reduction to practice, concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant an acceptance of the Examiner's conclusion. That the Board was somewhat doubtful of the correctness of its conclusion is apparent from the following: In closing this decision, we may confess to the fact that in studying the records, we have been led to conjecture that Saunders may actually have reduced the invention to practice, as is claimed in his behalf, long prior to Neckerman's filing date. The Assistant Commissioner, to whom Saunders appealed, found no difficulty in sustaining the view of the Examiner of Interferences. The evidence very clearly shows that just prior to March 30, 1910, a draw-bench was equipped by Saunders with the device of the issue. We shall not review the evidence here, since that has been done by the tribunals of the Patent Office. We agree with the Examiner of Interferences and the Assistant Commissioner that this draw-bench was successfully operated and that the completion and utility of this invention was fully demonstrated. The evidence shows that Saunders, some time subsequent to the installation of his device on a draw-bench, conceived the idea of so positioning a curved rod as to prevent the possible disengagement of the tong reins and chain. This additional feature was covered by claims allowed Saunders, but which were not included in this interference. Therefore, so far as this interference is concerned, the successful operation of a machine equipped as the Saunders machine was equipped prior to the addition of this so-called holddown device, constituted reduction to practice of the claims of the issue. And yet Neckerman's principal contention here is that there could be no reduction to practice without the addition of this holddown device. Since this device is not an element of the issue, we must assume, as indeed the evidence shows, that a draw-bench equipped in accordance with the claims as drawn would be operative. In other words, if the conditions were reversed and Saunders was the senior party relying, as does Neckerman, upon his filing date, he would be entitled to constructive reduction to practice upon the structure of the issue, irrespective of this auxiliary device. What we have said amounts to no more than an affirmation of the oft-repeated rule that claims will be interpreted as drawn. (Kirby v. Clements, C. D., 1915, 163; 216 O. G., 1319; 44 App. D. C., 12; Geltz v. Crozier, C. D., 1909, 313; 140 O. G., 757; 32 App. D. C., 324.) The decision is affirmed. Affirmed. [Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.] SAURER V. GROEBLI. Decided May 22, 1916. 239 O. G., 653; 45 App. D. C., 298. 1. INTERFERENCE-REASONABLE DILIGENCE. Where it is shown that G. conceived and disclosed the invention and made tentative drawings about February, 1910, made other drawings or sketches in October of the same year, constituting a disclosure of the invention, made further drawings in April, 1911, which clearly disclose every element of the invention, at which time he considered the invention complete and turned the papers over to his solicitor for preparation of the application, Held that since the invention is of an intricate nature, and detail of its very essence, G. acted in good faith in perfecting his invention and exercised reasonable diligence. Where S. relies for conception, disclosure, and constructive reduction to practice upon an application filed by him in Germany on November 17, 1910, and G. conceived and disclosed the invention about February, 1910, and was reasonably diligent in perfecting the same and filing an application therefor, Held that priority of invention was properly awarded to G. Mr. Henry Orth, Jr., for the appellant. Mr. Paul Finckel for the appellee. ROBB, J.: This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to Groebli, the senior party. The invention is for improved mechanism for punching jacquardcards, used in automatic embroidering-machines, and is defined in eleven counts, which are sufficiently illustrated by count 1, reading as follows: 1. In a punching machine, measuring mechanism, adapted to measure distances on a pattern, perforating mechanism for perforating a card, a plurality of selecting devices adapted to control the perforating elements to determine the location of the perforations, said selecting devices being adapted to operate alternately upon the name perforating elements, and intermediate mechanism adapted to transfer the motion of the measuring mechanism alternately to the different selecting devices upon different operations of the machine. Saurer, a resident of Switzerland, relies for conception, disclosure, and constructive reduction to practice, upon an application filed by him in Germany on November 17, 1910, his application herein having been filed November 14, 1911. The Examiner of Interferences and the First Assistant Commissioner ruled that this foreign application, containing a single diagrammatic view with a brief paragraph of description, does not sufficiently disclose the invention in issue, and therefore awarded priority to Groebli. These tribunals pointed out that in the present application of Saurer he has largely amplified his specification and drawings, and that it required invention thus to work out a result which he may have had in mind when he filed his German application but which, as they thought, he did not definitely disclose. The Board of Examiners-in-Chief entertained the view that this German application sufficiently disclosed the invention of the issue but further found that, although Groebli was first to conceive and disclose it, he was lacking in diligence because five months elapsed between his disclosure and the making of the drawings for the use of his attorney in filing his application. While we were impressed, with the soundness of the view of the Examiner of Interferences and the Assistant Commissioner on the first of the above-suggested questions, we think the decision safely may be rested upon the second. Mr. Groebli probably has contributed more to the development of this art than any other inventor and is very skilled therein, having taken out many patents appertaining thereto. The record demonstrates not only his great ability but his thoroughness in the matter of detail. It is clearly proven that he conceived and disclosed the invention about February, 1910, when he made what may be termed tentative drawings. In October of the 'same year, or just prior to the filing of Saurer's application, he made other drawings or sketches, all of which are in evidence. He was a very busy man and had no one, according to his uncontradicted testimony on this point, "who could by any possibility" assist him in the preparation and development of this invention. While there is no doubt that the sketches made in October constituted a disclosure of the invention, Mr. Groebli testified that he did not then consider "that the invention was completed"; that he was of the opinion that certain points would have to be worked out in greater detail and other points might require modifications. He further testified that he had the invention on his mind during the interval between October, 1910, and April, 1911. Finally, at that time, said the witness my ideas had become definite enough and I was able to complete the invention to the point where I considered it sufficient as a basis for a patent application, 16644°-18-13 |