If applicant has succeeded, by however simple a change, in avoiding the use of the same communion cup by more than one person, in lessening the danger of contamination by inserting the fingers in other cups, and in making the ceremony of taking communion more quiet and private, it is not a light matter to deny him the quality of invention. The Thomas patent is entirely directed at the form of the tray-body itself, which is designed for the purpose of nesting several trays together and holding them securely. Nowhere is there any point made of the arrangement of apertures for holding the cups, and it is doubtful whether it was the intention of the patentee to have the cups replaced in the tray by the individual user at all. There is apparently no suggestion even of the advisability of preventing a person from taking up one of the used cups. On the contrary, it is quite likely that this would happen because there is every invitation to put the used cup back in the same aperture from which it has been removed, and there is, in fact, not enough room in the larger apertures for placing all of the used cups even if it were desired to be done. Nothing in the patent suggests that the filled cups are to stand higher than the used cups, although it will of course happen that the empty cups will stand at a lower level in the larger outside openings 12 if they are conical in form, if the padding 13 does not interfere, and when there is only one cup in each aperture.

So far as the language at page 1, line 79, referred to by the Board, is concerned, it is not obvious what the patentee means, and it is quite possible that the word "however" refers to the previous statement that the group of inner apertures are smaller than the outer apertures, the suggestion being that the larger apertures might be put in the middle instead of around the periphery of the tray.

It is necessary not only to regard the functions of applicant's device, but to consider the circumstances of its use. The taking of communion is a quiet and solemn ceremony, in which the communicant is often in an emotional state, desirous of the greatest privacy and yet surrounded by strangers. Sometimes he merely touches the wine to his lips, leaving the cup full, and this it may not be agreeable to have observed. Under such circumstances he is apt to take hold of the first accessible cup and after use to put it back in the first opening he can find. The obvious invitation to place it out of sight in the large opening immediately contiguous to the one from which he took it seems to insure that it will be placed where it cannot be used again; also, the fact that the unused cups stand in elevated and separated position, with ample open space all around them, makes it easy to get an unused cup quietly and unlikely that the fingers will be dipped into other cups.

A brief examination of the file of the reference patent to Thomas disclosed that it was prosecuted vigorously and extensively without

there having even been any mention either by the patentee or the Office of the arrangement of apertures in the tray or any function therefor. It appears also that holders for individual communioncups have been the subject of invention and patent for a period of some dozen of years, at least, before Thomas and the present applicant and that the only suggestion of arranging the apertures for any of applicant's purposes (Patent No. 697,247, April 8, 1902, to Harris) was the use of several circumferential terraces of holes at different elevations in order to better the access to the cups. It is unsafe to say that an improvement, however simple, is obvious, when, as a matter of fact, it has been looked for and not found. The question is what does the invention do? (General Electric Co. v. Hill-Wright, 174 Fed. Rep., 996 to bottom 998.)

A novel arrangement which accomplishes the applicant's several desired ends presents invention enough to support a patent, and the action of the Board is overruled.

In substance both of the claims submitted by the applicant should be allowed; but it is suggested that they might well be put in better form. It is also suggested (what appears to have escaped the attention both of the applicant and the Examiner) that the specification, even if not the claim, should specify that the cups are of tapered or conical form, since otherwise the desired function of the differentsized apertures would not be attained.

Proper amendment should be required within thirty day.

AMES, JR., v. Ryan.

Decided May 7, 1917.

238 O. G., 1639.

1. INTERFERENCE-MOTION TO AMEND FORM OF.

"The rule provides that a motion to amend may be made containing claims which in the opinion of the moving party 'should be made the basis of interference between himself and any of the other parties.' The motion should, therefore, also be accompanied by a statement that it is believed that the claims are patentable and should be made the issue of an interference."

2. SAME-SAME-DEFINITENESS.

The reasons why a specific application of the references should be made when a motion to dissolve an interference is brought under Rule 122 apply also where a motion to amend the issue under Rule 109 by adding claims

1A communion-tray for supporting tapered cups, comprising a top having a series of alternately-arranged large and small openings adapted to support the cups in elevated position in the small openings and in substantially depressed position in the larger openings, substantially as and for the purpose described.

is presented.

It should be pointed out specifically wherein the claims which it is desired to add are applicable to the structure of each of the parties.

3. SAME-SAME-TRANSMISSION REFUSED INDEFINITE.

A motion to amend by adding twenty-two counts to the issue without pointing out why so large a number of claims is necessary or wherein these claims are applicable to the moving party's disclosure will not be set for hearing.

ON MOTION to amend.

ORDER.

Messrs. Roberts, Roberts & Cushman for Ames, Jr.

Messrs. Coale & Hayes and Mr. Alex D. Salinger for Ryan.

WHITEHEAD, First Assistant Commissioner:

A motion to amend has been filed by Ryan, by which it is proposed to add twenty-two claims which are stated to be taken from the Ames application.

It is not pointed out wherein so large a number of claims is necessary for the determination of the question of priority, nor is it pointed out wherein these claims are applicable to the moving party's disclosure.

Rule 122 provides that motions to dissolve an interference shall contain a full statement of the grounds relied upon, and it has been repeatedly held that where it is alleged that the claims are not patentable over the prior art a specific application of the reference should be made.

For the same reason where a motion to amend the issue under the provisions of Rule 109 is presented it should be pointed out specifically wherein these claims are applicable to the structures of each of the parties.

The rule provides that a motion to amend may be made containing claims which, in the opinion of the moving party

should be made the basis of interference between himself and any of the other parties.

The motion should, therefore, also be accompanied by a statement that it is believed that the claims are patentable and should be made the issue of an interference.

This motion was not filed within the time fixed by the Examiner of Interferences for bringing motions. In the affidavit accompanying the motion it is stated that the associate attorney came into the case on April 24, and the motion to amend was brought as soon as he discovered that the opposing party had in his case broad claims which apparently had been allowed, although he was moving to dissolve as to the broad counts of the issue. On May 2, 1917, a notice

was filed by the junior party that his motion for dissolution is withdrawn.

For the reasons above stated the motion to amend filed by Ryan as now presented will not be set for hearing.

1. INTERFERENCE

SAUNDERS v. NECKERMAN.

Decided May 15, 1916.

239 O. G., 319.

PRIORITY-PIPE-DRAWING APPARATUS.

Where N. relied on his record date, December 14, 1910, priority awarded S., who reduced to practice by embodying the invention in issue in an operative machine prior to March 30, 1910.

2. SAME-SAME-REDUCTION TO PRACTICE.

Where the issue called for automatic engagement of the tong-reins by the draw-chain dogs and it is contended that the device was not automatic prior to the addition of a latch, subsequently added, to hold the reins in position for engagement, Held that the device in issue was no less automatic if the tongs were held in position to be engaged by the welder than if held by the latch. The reduction to practice of the issue was complete without the latch.

APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief.

PIPE-DRAWING APPARATUS.

Mr. Charles C. Linthicum for the appellant.

Mr. F. N. Barber and Messrs. Bakewell, Byrnes & Parmelee for the appellee.

WHITEHEAD, Assistant Commissioner:

This is an appeal by Saunders from a decision of the Examiners-inChief reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences and awarding priority to Neckerman.

The invention in controversy relates to pipe-drawing apparatus, and the issue of the interference reads as follows:

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. 2. In a pipe drawing apparatus, a draw bench, an endless draw chain having travel thereon, a welding die, skelp engaging tongs and means 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.

3. 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, means for actuating said chain, and means on the chain adapted to automatically engage with the tong reins and draw skelp gripped by the tongs lengthwise over the draw-bench.

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.

Neckerman has taken no testimony and is therefore restricted to his filing date, December 14, 1910, for his date of conception and constructive reduction to practice.

The Examiner of Interference held that the proofs offered on behalf of Saunders were sufficient to establish that he had reduced the invention to practice prior to Neckerman's filing date. The Examiners-in-Chief held that Saunders had established neither conception nor reduction to practice prior to that date.

In the prior processes of drawing pipe there was positioned in front of the furnace a draw-bench of considerable length, running longitudinally of which was an endless chain. A welder, who was stationed near this draw-bench, reached into the furnace with a pair of tongs, seized upon a piece of skelp, the edges of which had been. heated to a welding temperature, placed a welding-bell over the tongs, and threw the tong-reins into position over the endless chain. Thereupon a boy known as the hook-runner placed a hook over the end of the tong-reins and into engagement with a link of the endless chain, so that by the motion of the chain the skelp was drawn through the welding-bell and the pipe formed. The hook-runner ran alongside of the draw-bench with his hand upon the hook until the pipe had been drawn entirely through the welding-bell. He then released the hook and returned to the other end of the draw-bench and repeated the operation. The pipe which had been thus drawn was rolled into a position where it passed through the sizing-rolls. The object of the present invention was to dispense with the hook-runner boy and provide automatic means for connecting the tongs and the draw-chain.

Saunders testifies that he conceived the invention in October, 1909, when they were having trouble with the hooker boys, and Hensen testifies that at that time Saunders told him that he thought he could do away with the hooker boys and that he wanted a sketch made of a forked hook which could be put into the chain, so the welder could let go of his end of the tongs and the hook would come around and catch the tongs automatically.

The testimony shows that the draw-bench at the No. 6 furnace at the national works of the National Tube Company was changed to incorporate Saunders's idea in the last week of March, 1910. A