of which are in the same direction, on the same leg or arm of the core, and are interposed one with the other, and a conductor leading from the middle point of the winding.

The grounds of his decision as regards the foregoing counts is, that among their elements is

a winding for said core

said winding being in two parts,

and are interposed one with the other

and that

Townsend does not show or describe a winding in which the turns are interposed with each other.

On appeal to the Examiners-in-Chief this decision was affirmed in an elaborate decision. On further appeal this decision was affirmed by the Commissioner. The necessary result is an award of priority to Thullen. All maintained the view of the Primary Examiner that Townsend had failed to disclose an induction-bond with the turns of the windings "interposed with each other."

The claims having been copied from Thullen's patent, the familiar rule of construction was followed, namely, that they are to be understood in the light of the description in that patent.

The claims for windings interposed one with the other follow the specific description of the patent. There is no such description in Townsend's application and drawings. He states, however, that it is well known that certain kinds of transformers have been in use with interposed windings, and contends that his reference to transformers informs all persons skilled in the art that the windings about the core of his device are intended to be made in the same manner, and is therefore sufficient to entitle him to make the claims of Thullen.

It is quite true that the specifications of a patent are addressed to persons skilled in the art, and that a disclosure which is sufficiently specific to enable such persons to readily construct and use the invention constitutes a compliance with the requirements of section 4888, Revised Statutes, as held in the case relied on by the appellant. (Hopkins v. Newman, C. D., 1908, 395; 134 O. G., 2028; 30 App. D. C., 402, 410, and cases there cited.)

In that case, the invention was of a device by which a combination was to be effected in the operation of his type-writing machine with a separate adding-machine. Newman's specifications and drawings showed a type-writing and an adding machine placed side by side, with a suitable means for adapting a single platen to coöperate with. the printing mechanism of each machine. The printing mechanism of the type-writing machine was shown in the drawing and described together with the mechanism for actuating and controlling the movement of the platen. The drawing showed only the case and a few minor elements of the adding-machine. The object described was

merely to provide type-writing mechanism and means for combining the same with the adding mechanism; and stated that it was illustrated in connection with an adding-machine known as the registering accountant that has been patented to Burroughs. Expert witnesses testified that they recognized the Burroughs machine in the drawing, and that from the description and drawing the invention could be readily constructed by any one skilled in the art. Newman did not undertake to make any change or improvement in the well-known adding-machine. His invention began with it and consisted in combining therewith his type-writing machine, by making the specified change in the carriage whereby a single platen is made to coöperate with the separate printing mechanism of the two machines.

It was held that in order to make the claims, it was not obligatory upon Newman to completely describe and illustrate the mechanism of the adding-machine; the want of specification of its elements and functions being fully supplied and rendered certain by the reference. The other cases cited go no farther than that.

The conditions of Townsend's case are quite different. No one of the several kinds of transformers is a part of the device or combination of the issue. The reference to transformers in general has nothing to do with their windings. While it is said the construction is in many respects like transformers-no particular kind of which is mentioned these respects are then specifically limited to their methods of insulation, which, it is said, are not illustrated because not novel and no claim is made for them.

In view of this reference to transformers generally and the limited nature of the reference to their insulation, we must hold that the description is insufficient for the purpose contended.

We concur in the following extract from the Commissioner's decision:

If the illustration of the windings shown by Townsend is considered as merely diagrammatic and the Thullen arrangement is old in the art, as contended by appellant, this fact does not warrant Townsend in substituting said arrangement for his conventional illustration and claiming it in his application. There may be several ways of arranging the windings in the prior art, any one of which Townsend might appropriate if his contention is correct. It is common to illustrate a battery diagrammatically, for example, but such illustration would not support claims for any particular variety of battery. (Ex parte Scott, C. D., 1905, 4; 114 O. G., 260.)

On the other hand, if the position apparently taken by the Examiner, namely, that Townsend discloses the specific construction of his bond, be accepted, it is clear that Thullen shows another species of bond. The Primary Examiner held count 1 of the issue generic to both species. The remaining counts are believed to be specific to Thullen's construction for the reason stated above. The fact that Thullen's structure may be the equivalent of that of appellant does not give Townsend the right to make the specific claims.

It is not necessary to determine which of the above interpretations of Townsend's disclosure is correct, since under neither interpretation has he the right to make the appealed claims.

We find no error in the decision and it will therefore be affirmed. The clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents as the law directs.

[Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.]

PETERS v. PIKE, JR.

Decided March 3, 1909.

143 O. G., 259; 33 App. D. C., 59.

INTERFERENCE-EVIDENCE-ALLEGED DISCLOSURE TO DRAFTSMAN-FAILURE TO EMBODY IN DRAWINGS.

Where an inventor alleges that he disclosed an invention to a draftsman for the purpose of having drawings made of the invention disclosed to him and neither the drawings produced by the draftsman nor the machines built therefrom contain the invention, it is evident that either the invention had not been conceived or that it had not been disclosed as claimed.

Mr. F. P. Davis for the appellant.

Mr. Charles E. Foster for the appellee.

VAN ORSDEL, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding affirming the decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, which, in turn, affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, awarding judgment of priority to appellee.

This invention relates to improvements in adding-machines of the Burroughs type. In the machines as placed upon the market prior to this invention, if the operator desired to strike a total of the amount that had been printed, a special key was depressed and the handle of the machine pulled forward, whereupon the total would be printed on the strip of paper at the foot of the list. If the key was held down, not only while the operating-handle was on its forward stroke, but until it returned to its normal position, the adding-wheels returned to zero, or in position for the printing of another column of numbers. When it became necessary to carry the total forward for further items to be added to it, or, in the language of the trade, obtain a subtotal, this was accomplished by releasing the special key before the operator released the handle. It will be observed that the striking of a subtotal involved caution on the part of the user to release the special key at just the proper time. It was to obviate this difficulty that the invention in interference was conceived. A special

key was provided to obtain a subtotal which need not be released in the middle of the operation, but, like the original total-key, it would remain depressed throughout the operation of the machine. The issue is embodied in the following counts:

1. In a machine of the class described, the combination with the registeractuating racks and the register normally in engagement with said racks, of the main shaft, connections from the main shaft adapted to normally disengage and reëngage the register and racks while accumulating amounts, means controlling said connections for taking the totals, and independent means for rendering said connections inoperative to disengage the register from the racks while taking subtotals.

2. In a machine of the class described, the combination with the registeractuating racks and the register normally in engagement with said racks, of the main shaft, connections from the main shaft adapted to normally disengage and reëngage the register and racks while accumulating amounts, means controlling said connections for making the totals, and a key which when pressed in renders said connections inoperative to disengage the register from the racks while making subtotals.

3. In a machine of the class described, the combination with the registeractuating racks and the register normally in engagement with said racks, of the main shaft, mechanism operated by the main shaft for normally disengaging and reëngaging the racks and register while accumulating amounts, and a subtotal-key adapted to disconnect said mechanism from the main shaft.

4. The combination with the forked pitman and reciprocating arm and connections, of a controller adjustable to put the pitman into and out of operative connection with the arm.

5. In a machine of the character described, the combination with the forked pitman, oscillating arm and its pawl, and three-armed lever 913, of means adjustable to put the arm and pitman into and out of operative connection.

6. In a machine of the character described, the combination with the forked pitman, of devices for reciprocating the same, and a controller adjustable to render said devices operative or inoperative on the pitman.

Appellee filed his application on August 5, 1904, while appellant did not file his application until April 29, 1905. It will thus be seen that appellant comes here not only with the weight of the decisions of the three tribunals of the Patent Office against him, but also with the burden cast upon him as the junior party to this interference.

No testimony was taken by appellee. He relies on the filing of his application for the date of his conception and reduction to practice. The sole question before us is whether the evidence is sufficient to overcome appellee's prior filing date. Appellant claims to have conceived the invention in issue and disclosed it to one Conkling, his office assistant, to one Schiffling, a mechanical inspector for the Burroughs Adding Machine Company, and to one Tripp, a draftsman, during the first week of July, 1904, while examining a copy of a patent granted to appellee on June 28, 1904. His evidence on this point is indefinite, and it is not clear whether the subtotaling device had been conceived by appellant at that time, or whether the testimony related to an automatic totaling device, an invention entirely distinct

from the subtotaling device of the issue. Considering his evidence in the most favorable light, it is necessary that it be corroborated by the testimony of one or more of the persons to whom he claims to have disclosed this invention.

The evidence of Miss Conkling is characterized by that uncertainty and indefiniteness which pervades the whole record. An examination of her testimony fails to fix the date of the disclosure of the invention in issue prior to August 5th, appellee's filing date. Upon being asked to state what had taken place during her employment concerning the inventions of appellant, she replied:

During that time Mr. Peters made a number of inventions, among them the automatic totaling device, and others.

She then fixed the date of the disclosure of the automatic totaling device as in the early part of July, 1904. This date is fixed by relation to a trip which she says she made to the factory in June. The following question was then asked:

Please state, as near as you can recall, just what Mr. Peters explained to you at that time with reference to this invention.

In reply she described the structure involved in the automatic totaling device. This answer, we think, casts a serious doubt upon the contention that the device here in issue was disclosed at that time. The following question and answer then appear:

Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Peters claim about the taking of a subtotal? A. Naturally, that was the first question asked in the office, and he explained to us that by interfering with the normal action of the 821, as the machine was automatically arranged, the 821 would be thrown out of mesh with the 961 stud, on the three-cornered part, which rocks backward and forward coöperatively with the operation of the 934, or pitman.

We agree with the Commissioner when he says:

This answer contains the most definite statement found in the testimony of Miss Conkling as to the date of the disclosure to her of the subtotaling device of the issue. The fact that the matter of taking a subtotal was "naturally the first question asked in the office" does not warrant the conclusion that the disclosure took place prior to August 5, 1904, the filing date of Pike.

It does not follow that the means for subtotaling was disclosed on the same date the automatic totaling device was disclosed. This testimony must be considered in connection with the other evidence in the record, which tends to establish this disclosure, if, in fact, one was made at all, subsequent to that date. It will also be noted that this witness was not aware of any specific means by which the normal action of the pawl could be interfered with.

The witness Schiffling testified that appellant explained to him the device for automatically taking a total, and also showed him a sketch of the same. As to the subtotaling device, he said:

Mr. Peters, in his sketch shown me, illustrated only the idea of the automatic total, but stated that a separate device would be necessary to take a subtotal