« 이전계속 »
or tripping motion away from the cutters-knives, which was obtained by placing the rand-guard with the rand-knives running next it upon a rand-carriage supported by links. This required the rand-knives to be moved by a different device from the first, one yielding not only axially, but also transversely. This was finally accomplished in a machine put upon the market about February 26, 1889, by a small shaft with a universal joint working within the hollow heel-cutter shaft, and from which it was driven.
Glidden's 1886 machine connected the rand knives with the hollow heel-cutter shaft by a flexible coil-shaft. The question is whether the rand-knives and the heel-cutter knives so connected and in combination with the yielding rand guard constitute the machine described in the issues within the meaning of the law of patentability. This flexiblewire shaft, it must be admitted, connects the rand-knife and the heel. trimmer shaft by which the heel-cutter knives are driven in some fashion. It is a step beyond the position of the inventor when he has in mind merely that the rand-cutter and the shaft must be connected somehow, but without the conception of any defined means, however imperfect. Moreover, this machine triinmed and randed a few heels.
But if Glidden had a complete invention in this 1886 machine he himself did not know it. He not only called it an "esperimental machine,” (Record, p. 47,) but he treated it as such. It was dismantled and was never assembled until it became necessary for the purpose of tbis interference. Not only so, but at this poiut his experiments took ån entirely different turn, and he spent nearly two years in groping among various mechanical devices for driving the rand cutter, first by a counter-shaft, -grooved pulleys, and belt, then by a train of gears, and by other devices, none of which was accepted by Gliddeu as the last step in an inventive process, leaving nothing more but to adapt one part to another skillfully, so as to make an acceptable machine for the market. The 1886 machine was taken apart and packed away, and Glidden experimented on the gear-driven trimmer, which was tried on the same staud. The experiment with the gear-driven trimmer in turn gave way to experiments upon the improved jack-trimmer. The improved jack-trimmer gave place to the two-linked rand-knife carriage, and that to the slot-and-link knife-carriage, and that to the mod. ern rand-carriage, which the association to which Glidden belonged put upon the market iu February, 1889. This modern machine, as before stated, contained what is known in this case as the “Winter invention"—the short shaft with the universal joint by which the randcutter was driven and which Glidden in 1885 and 1886 bad attempted to drive by the flexible-wire coil-shaft.
Not only not in the spring of 1886, but apparently not until after June 2, 1888, did Glidden think of the machine with the flexible.wire coil-shaft as the completed invention, for in his drawings forming part of his application of that date he does not show that method of driving the rand-knife, but in place of it shows the counter-shaft with the V-shaped pulley and belt.
The case cannot be decided upon what Glidien thought, although his judgment touching the question when the invention of a randing and trimining machine would be complete, exercised at the time and evidenced by his actions as well as his words, is important evidence upon that point and is unfavorable to himn; but ipart from his own judgment it is considered that the flexible-wire coil shaft not only was not thought to be by Glidden, but is not, in fact, suchi comection for the rand-cutter and the cutter-hearl is completes the invention. It follows that the 1886 machine, like the one that joreceded it and those that followed it until Winter's invention came out, was experimental and does not afford the basis of a julginent of priority in favor of Glidden as against Busell's patent.
The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is allirmed.
GLIDDEN 1. NOBLE.
Decided Jarch 21, 1894.
67 0. G., 676. INTERFERENCE-INOPERATIVENESS-PRIORITY OF INV on.
Where the structure of one of the parties to an interference in luoporative, Held that priority of invention cannot be awardod to bim. APPEAL from the Examiners-in-Chief.
Application of Charles W. Glidden filed June 2, 1***, No. 275,880. Application of Oscar L. Noble filed February 23, 1885, No. 20-1,99|1.
Messrs. Crosby & Gregory and Jessrs. Lange & Roberts for Gliden.
Messrs. Wright, Brown & Crossley and Jessrs. Maynadier i Beach for Noble. SEYMOUR, Commissioner:
This is an appeal taken by Glidden froin the decision of the Examinersin-Chief reversing the decision of the Examiner of Lutarfi:rences and awarding priority of invention in favor of Noble.
The issue in interference is as follows: In a heel trimming machine, a rotary heol cutter, a carring", i hipopoort for it, a rand guard attached thereto and shaped to project ovor the beachdar,mit rotary rand entter carried by the said carriage, the said parts combinoll wloosely bloos poosi tion of the rand guard with its rand cutter and the rotary bocid cubler may bu changed relatively to expose more or loss of the odges of the colloir blandes its tho coutour of the heel to be trimmed varies.
In the case of Glidden v. Busell, tried and argued by utipulation on the same record as this case, it was held that Glidden'm 1886 miucliino was experimental and was not the complete invention. The decision upon that point is reiterated here. It must also be added that without the Winter invention the Glidden device never embodied a useful combination of the rand cutter and the rotary heel cutter with the other elements of the issue. Judgment of priority, therefore, cannot be given to Glidden upon this record.
Turning now to Noble's case, while its deficiencies are apparent, the record furnishes no ground for reversing the decision of the Examinersin-Chief, and as Winter's application, upon which his Patent No. 447,744, of March 3, 1891, was granted, filed October 9, 1888, was pending in the Oflice at the same time with Noble's and appears to disclose and substantially to claim the issue in this interference, it would seem that judgment of mere priority in this case would be followed by a new interference with Winter, in which the question of originality attempted to be raised upon this record would be necessarily determined.
Under these circumstances the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is affirmed.
EX PARTE BUTZ.
Decided March 21, 1894.
67 0.G., 677.
Where the essential feature of the improvement in the method of manufacturing structural material by working the material from the center toward the ends consists in operating upon all parts of the cross-section of the material at every pass, and the best mode of applying the improvement is oxplained in connection with the applicant's machine for rolling structural material, and the references only indirectly disclose methods for shaping round and conrex forms in the art of rolling iron bars, Held that the method is not the mere function of applicant's machine nor a discretionary variation of the well known practices indicated by the references.
APPEAL from the Board of Examiners-in-Chief.
MANUFACTURE OF STRUCTURAL MATERIAL.
Application of Edward M. Butz filed April 24, 1893, No. 471,603.
Mr. George H. Christy for the applicant. SEYMOUR, Commissioner:
Appeal is taken to the Commissioner from the decision of the Exam. iners-in-Chief rejecting the claims in this application. The case has been twice before the Examiners-in-Chief; first, on appeal from the rejection by the Examiner of the following claims:
1. As an improvement in the art of manufacturing structural shapes, such as I beams, &c., the method herein describer which consists in laterally displacing, by a wedge-like action during the process of rolling, more or less of the metal which constitutes the middle portion of an ingot, bloom or slab, so as to push it over toward the "ends" or flange portions thereof and simultaneously and in the same rolling operation subjecting such “ends" or flange portions to a rolling compression, with reference to a uniform or nearly uniform reduction of all portions of the ingot, bloom or slab while being brought to the finished form desired substantially as set forth.
2. As an improvement in the art of manufacturing structural shapes, such as I beams, &c., the method lierein describedl, which consists in progressively and simultaneously compressing the metal of an ingot, bloom, or slab at all points toward the center lines of the web and flanges by a rolling action at all points, with particular reference to the embodiment of the invention illustrated in Fig. 11, substantially as set forth.
The references cited were Gustin, November 7, 1865, No. 50,816; Seaman, May 26, 1885, No. 318,513; Moxham, July 7, 1887, No. 321,627; Reed and Rowley, January 28, 1890, No. 420,100; Meatyard, August 10, 1836, No. 347,005; Sack, July 8, 1890, No. 431,623; British Patents, No. 1,091 of 1863 and No. 3,519 of 1881, and French Patent No. 20,298, February 1, 1858, to Talabot.
After the adverse decision of the Board on these claims applicant was permitted to add the following claim, under Rule 142:
As an improvement in the art of manufacturing structural material, the method herein described, which consists in forming the flauges by displacing the metal along the middle portions of ingot, bloom, or slab, and simultaneously compressivg the "ends" or flange portions at all points whereby any upsetting of the metal is avoided, and the ingot, bloom, or slab is sbaped and reduced in cross sertional dimensions at every point, substantially as set forth.
Tbis claim was rejected by the Primary Examiner, and a second appeal was taken to the Board, the references cited being Alleyne, November 27, 1866, No. 59,940; Seaman, above cited; Reed and Rowley, above cited, and Sack, above cited.
The Examiners-in-Chief affirmed the rejection of this claim, and thereupon appeal was taken to the Commissioner on all the claims.
Until recent times only small girders-up to twelve inches-were rolled in the ordinary trains satisfactorily. In the larger forms the bad effects of unequal stretching rendereil the product of doubtful value because of the strain which it underwent in the process of rolling or of the flaws which would come in the langes by tearing. The process disclosed iv. this application is not the were function of the appellant's machine, and is a true process, although a mechanical process, and as such is patentable if new. The question then is, ** Is the process as such disclosed in any of the references?”
At the outset it may be stated that none of the references contain a claim for the method in question, nor, indeed, for any method. All methods indirectly disclosed in the patents cited for the apparatus of rolling round or convex forms may be laid out of the case, for none of the difficulties attempted to be met by this process are found when rolling such forms.
The appellant's method of working the material from the center toward the ends of the finished product and of working upon and reducing all parts of the cross-section at every pass were pronounced impracticable by the distinguished experts present at the meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute, in London, in 1889, by Mr. Hugo Sack, in a luminous paper read by him upon this subject in the presence of Sir Henry Bessemer, Mr. Jeremiah Ilead, and others, in the course of which he said, in substance, that it was obvious that no pressure could be exerted upon the outer surface of the flanges, and that their width could not be much reduced, and that, therefore, the inner surface alone offered a point of attack for reducing their thickness; and, while it was claimed by Mr. Sack that his invention-one of the references in this case—differed from all others so far as the working surfaces of the rolls covered the section on all sides, it is apparent both from his patent drawings and from the illustrations presented with his paper that this was not the case for any of the earlier passes. In the discussion which followed it appeared that Mr. Sack had aimed at rolling every part of every section equally, so as to make and finish it under equal physical conditions and avoid the tearing at the edges of the flanges resulting froin any different inethod.
But a careful examination of the Sack mill-of all that he discloses by way of method concerning it-shows that it is not a full anticipation of the appellant's method as hereinbefore described, or at least if Sack expresses the thought his apparatus does not carry it fully into effect.
Seaman's patent, while containing language which by a liberal construction might be called a verbal anticipation of the appellant's method, is nevertheless merely verbal and his apparatus will not execnte it.
It is considered that the appellant discloses and claims a method of rolling structural iron of concave cross-section which is more than mere discretionary variation upon well-known practices and which is not the function of the improved machinery employed by him.
The decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief is therefore reversed.
EX PARTE SILVERS.
Decided Ipril 27, 1894.
67 0. G., 811.
TRADE-MARK - APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION-DivisioN-ONE REGISTRATION
MAY EMBRACE SEVERAL DIFFERENT ARTICLES. There is no authority for requiring division of an application for the registration of a trado-wark to accord with the subdivisions of the Office classification.
APPEAL from the Examiner of Trade Marks.
TRADE-MARK FOR FLAVORING EXTRACTS, ETC.
Application of John S. Silvers and William S. Silvers for registration filed September 29, 1893.