prising that the metal should be cut through along the spiral of the screw-thread if the chuck were provided with a thread having a sharp edge.

The most obvious expedient, the simplest means for remedying this fault, the one which would naturally suggest itself to a person of common intelligence, would be to reduce the cutting-edge by dulling it, or, in other words, rounding it, so that the cutting effect should no longer exist. Viewed in the light of the state of the art, I cannot agree that this simple expedient rises to the merit of a patentable invention.

In regard to claim 4, it must be evident that the advantage or purpose of the taper which is given to the chuck is in no wise modified or affected by the fact that the chuck is also provided with a screw-thread. The purpose of the two features is quite distinct, and, to my view, the claim will be fully answered if we find that prior to applicant's invention it was common to make these spinning chucks or formers with a taper. That it was so, is a matter well known in the art and which does not require any specific reference to establish. This being so, to unite in the same former another old feature—to wit, a screw-thread, where both perform the same old function in the same old way, and produce no joint modified effect, but a simple aggregated result-is utterly devoid of invention and cannot be patented.

The action of the Board in rejecting claims 1 and 4 is affirmed.

PERKINS ET AL. v. COMPTON ET AL.

Decided December 29, 1877.

(O. G., vol. xiii, p. 43.)

1. Doubted whether parties who have made oath of joint inventorship can be deemed to be improperly joined merely upon inference deduced from the use of the singular pronoun by one of them in testifying as to the history of the invention. 2. In the absence of direct and positive testimony on the point, and there being corroborating evidence of the assistance of the other joint applicant in perfecting the invention, the Commissioner refused to disturb the joint oath.

3. A figure in a sheet of drawings which, if precisely followed, might possibly produce the invention in contest, will not suffice to establish priority where the foreign patent to which it belongs describes an essentially different invention.

APPEAL from the decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief in the matter of the interference between J. H. and G. H. Perkins v. Sydney S. Compton v. George H. Chinnock v. Edwin A. Leland, for "Improvement in Sheet-Metal Cans."

Mr. J. Bonsall Taylor, for Perkins and Perkins;

Mr. Jas. A. Whitney, for Chinnock, Compton, and Leland.

SPEAR, Commissioner:

Although there are three distinct applications and one patent in this case, there are practically only two parties, Perkins and Perkins on the

one side, and Chinnock, Compton, and Leland on the other, their interests having been consolidated; and although there are three distinct issues, the conditions of the cases are such that the issues may all be considered together conveniently and without confusion.

Between Perkins and Perkins on the one hand and Compton on the other the issue is as follows: "A sheet-metal can the side of whose head has a flange at substantially right angles to its main body and to the body of the can, said flange being soldered at its edge to the body of the can by a designedly frangible joint, both head and body of the can being constructed and arranged to move toward each other under force properly directed and sufficient to overcome the soldered joint."

Between Messrs. Perkins, Compton, Chinnock, and Leland the issue is stated to be, "A can having its parts which are to be separated to open the can joined by solder, and having such parts intentionally constructed and arranged to move toward each other upon the direct application to either of such parts of force properly directed and sufficient to break the solder."

Between Messrs. Perkins and Perkins and the patent of Leland, "A sheet-metal can the rim of whose head is set obliquely to the body of the can, and which at its head is united thereto by a designedly frangible joint, there being an interspace between the head and body to permit them to approach each other on fracture of the joint."

The same principle is involved in all the distinct cases. The construction is such, that by forcing down the cover of the cau the soldered edges are ruptured and the cover can then be removed.

Preliminary to the discussion of the question of priority, my attention was called, by counsel for Messrs. Compton, Chinnock, and Leland, to a question raised, both before the Board and the Examiner of Interferences, as to the standing of Messrs. Perkins and Perkins as joint in

ventors.

Reliance was placed upon the testimony of George H. Perkins alone, by the parties opposing him, to show that he was the sole inventor of the device in controversy. In his direct examination George H. Perkins, in giving the history of the making of the invention, uses the singular pronoun, as if he had alone conceived of and worked out the invention. There is no direct and positive statement in that testimony that he was not aided by his brother, the other party joined with him in the application, and it is only a matter of inference from the language used by him in reciting the incidents attending the making of the invention. I doubt whether this would be sufficient to overcome the oath of the parties as to their joint invention. But it appears, further, from the testimony in answer to interrogatory 9, that his brother was with him when Exhibit B was made; that he "took up the experiments and conducted them for perfecting the details for making machinery for getting the cylindrical bodies, for perfecting machinery for drawing the lids, and for making solder of the desired frangibility." Also, in answer to interrogatory 10, З СР

he speaks of his brother using the blacking-box bottoms, which were used as covers in the course of the experiments.

He refers, also, to his brother, J. H. Perkins, in answer to cross-interrogatory 26 to the same effect. And J. H. Perkins is also referred to, in the testimony of Crumback, as having a share in the experimenting upon the cans. Under such circumstances I should not feel justified in going behind the oath of these parties, and deciding that they were not joint inventors. Wheeler v. Russell and Miller, C. D. 1872, p. 32; Chase v. White and Chase, Ibid., 1873, p. 99; Carter & Dwyer v. Perry & Dickey, Ibid., 1875, p. 112.

The question of priority of invention is not difficult of solution. It is proved that Exhibits A and B were made by Perkins and Perkins in March of 1875. These exhibits show the invention in controversy. I think there is no doubt that they were following the invention diligently, reducing it to practice, providing machinery for the successful manufacture of the improved can, and in due order they filed an application for a patent. Beyond question, there is nothing which can pretend to antedate this, except the English patent of Chinnock, which he puts in evidence to show priority of invention upon his part. This patent is of 1872. I have examined carefully the specification and drawing of this English patent, and do not find therein the invention in controversy. Figure 16 of the drawing comes nearest to showing the invention. It may possibly be, that if a can were made precisely in the form as shown in the sectional Figure 16, it might be opened in the manner called for in the specification of Perkins and Perkins; but the invention described in the English patent of Chinnock is another and distinct invention. The general object had in view was the same, but the principal of the invention is radically different.

In order to remove the cover from the cans, Chinnock proposed in his English patent to wrap about the can and the flange of the cover, over the line of junction, a strip which was to be soldered down in such a manner as to be removable. One end was to overlap the other, and in order to remove the cover this strip could be torn off by taking hold of the overlapping end. There are some modifications of the plan, but the general idea is the same. There is no hint of leaving a space between the upper edge of the can and the inner surface of the cover, or any equivalent construction by which the cover could be crushed down in order to rupture the solder at the junction of the cover and the can. I am of the opinion, therefore, that Perkins and Perkins must be considered joint inventors, and that they are also prior inventors over the other parties in the controversy.

I therefore affirm the decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief, and award priority to Perkins and Perkins.

WYMAN v. KNOWLES.

Decided January 11, 1878.

(O. G., vol. xiii, p. 320.)

1. The interference declaration sustained, the device being one for correcting faults in fancy-loom weaving, which permitted the shedding mechanism and pattern-cylinder to be operated independently of the lay in finding a lost pick. That the device is attached to an open-shed loom in one case and to a close-shed in the other makes no essential difference, the independent and unison operation which it secures being common to both looms.

2. Corroborated testimony respecting certain unpreserved drawings illustrative of the invention not wholly disregarded where the patentee's efforts prior to their date of making and his subsequent achievements brought them clearly within the line of invention pursued.

3. Although the subordinate device containing the invention performs its functions well, yet if the machine in which it is embodied proves a failure this experimental test will not prevail against an adversary who has perfected and successfully operated the entire machinery containing it.

4. The interference decided in favor of the patentee, his adversary having failed to antedate the inceptive invention as fixed by the unpreserved drawings, or, disregarding these, to show that the alleged prior embodiment by him was other than a neglected and unappreciated experiment.

APPEAL from the decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief in the matter of the interference between the application of Horace Wyman, filed October 27, 1874, and letters patent granted to Lucius J. Knowles, January 21, 1873, for "Improvement in Looms."

Messrs. Crosby and Gregory for Wyman.

Mr. T. H. Dodge and Mr. A. Pollock for Knowles.

SPEAR, Commissioner :

This is an interference between a patent granted January 21, 1873, and an application filed October 27, 1874. Knowles is the patentee. The subject-matter of the interference relates to mechanism for correcting faults or errors in weaving upon fancy looms, and consists of a clutch interposed between the crank-shaft and the shedding mechanism and pattern cylinder or chain, the organization being such that the shedding mechanism and pattern-cylinder may be operated independently of the lay in going back to find a lost pick.

The claims in controversy are precisely the same in the patent as in the application, and the clutch mechanism is substantially the same, though the looms themselves differ materially, that of Knowles being what is known as an open-shed and that of Wyman a close-shed loom. My attention was called to these differences at the hearing, and particularly to the differences in operation of the two looms with respect to the backward movement of the mechanism in finding a lost pick. In the loom of Wyman, whenever it is found desirable to reverse the movement, it is only necessary to disconnect the shedding and pattern mechanisms from the lay by a single clutch, and then by one crank or

handle to reverse both the shedding and the pattern mechanisms, the two moving backward in conjunction and simultaneously. In Knowles's machine the shedding devices cannot practically be moved backward, so that there can be no backward simultaneous movement of pattern chain or cylinder and shedding devices. They can be moved forward together, but this, I understand from the testimony and from the admission of Knowles himself (cross-interrogatory 168), is not ordinarily practicable. The mode of operation, as appears from the testimony and from the construction of the loom, is to disconnect the lay from the machinery which operates the heddles, then disconnecting also the pattern cylinder or chain from the shedding apparatus, to work the latter forward and the former backward alternately until the true pick is found. It was urged by counsel for Wyman, with apparent force, that the first and fourth claims adopted by Knowles in his reissue No. 7,785, granted July 3, 1877, and which has been substituted for the original patent in the present interference, were misleading in using the term "in unison," as relating to his loom, this term having been borrowed from Wyman's claims. This would certainly be true if the words "in uison" are to be interpreted as meaning simultaneously, or in the same direction, for the Wyman loom alone has shedding mechanism, as I have said, capable of simultaneous backward operation with the pattern mechanism. Yet it does not appear to me, either from the ordinarily accepted meaning of the term or from the nature of the invention, that the words quoted should be construed to mean simultaneous movement. I leave out of the discussion the simultaneous forward movement possible in the Knowles loom, because, as shown clearly by counsel for Wyman, and as appears from admissions of Knowles, heretofore mentioned, the forward movement throughout the entire pattern would be ordinarily impracticable.

The unison or harmony required in the reverse movement necessary to find the lost pick is simply that the levers or arms of the shedding mechanism and the protuberances on the pattern-chain shall be operated in an orderly manner corresponding to the pattern. It is immaterial whether the shedding mechanism be moved backward or forward; the operation of the heddles is the same in either case. But the fault being discovered ordinarily soon after its occurrence, it is practicable only to turn the pattern-chain backward (that being the shorter way) until that row of protuberances be found which moved the shedding mechanism to form the pick preceding what is called the lost pick. And, further, it is necessary to move this pattern-chain backward step by step, and to operate the shedding mechanism at the right moment, and at each step of the pattern-chain. This prescribed and orderly movement is the unison and harmony necessary, and appears to me to be independent of all considerations of simultaneous movement, or movement of both mechanisms in one direction, and that the words used are compatible with the opposite and alternate motions of the shedding and pattern