GEORGE F. HUTCHINS, ADMINISTRATOR.

Extension.

March 2, 1871.

In the matter of the application of George F. Hutchins, administrator of Charles Hutchins, for the extension of letters-patent for a MACHINE FOR MAKING AXES, granted to Charles Hutchins March 3, 1857. Upon the order of the Commissioner, as provided in section 10 of the patent law, this case was heard by the examiners-in-chief, who reported upon the application as follows:

"The history of the invention may be summed up briefly as follows: "About the year 1841 Charles Hutchins, the inventor, entered into the employment of the Douglas Ax-Manufacturing Company as chief machinist and engineer. His attention was very soon directed to the demand for a machine that would prepare the poles, and thereby save a great amount of labor then performed by hand. A long series of experiments followed, with varying results, culminating finally in 1855 in the production of the machine in question, which was immediately pronounced a success. July 25, 1855, an application for a patent was filed, which was rejected and at length withdrawn in January, 1857, a new application being sent to the office simultaneously with the withdrawal. This latter application was filed January 26, 1857, and is the one on which the patent under consideration was finally issued March 3, 1857.

"Hutchins was a poor man, dependent upon his daily wages received from the company heretofore mentioned. The expense attending the procurement of the patent was borne by the Douglas Ax Company, which had already built one of the machines and put it into use. The inventor had not the capital to build machines or enter into the manufacture of axes himself; the sale of the patent could not easily be effected, as only large manufactories could afford the expense of introducing and running the machines, and there were few such in the country; and at length Hutchins sold all his right to the invention to his employers, in 1859, for $3,000, which is all he ever received on account thereof. The testimony of several of the leading operatives employed by the Douglas Ax-Manufacturing Company proves that the said company have manufactured about 5,000,000 ax-poles by the Hutchins machine, at a saving of two or two and a half cents per pole; from which it appears that in the business of this firm the invention has proved to be actually worth from $100,000 to $125,000, or, as the applicant puts it, 'estimating that one-half of this saving has accrued to the public, the latter has actually received a benefit on account of Hutchins's invention the money value of which is at least $50,000.'

"There remains to be considered one question, and that the important one in this case. The examiner, while admitting the novelty in some

respects of the machine in question, reports against the validity of the claim, which is as follows:

"The preparation of the bar or block of iron by longitudinal rolling between rolling dies operating substantially as herein described, to form it with a projection on one face in the middle of its length and two projections on the opposite face, one at each end, substantially as described, in combination with the cross rolling between segment dies under a mode of operation substantially such as herein described, to reduce the thickness of the cheeks toward the edges, and to form the required swell on the edges of the cheeks, substantially as described and for the purpose specified. "

It appears that one D. P. Estep filed an application for a patent for a machine somewhat similar to that under consideration, May 31, 1855, a few months prior to the first application of Hutchins. This application was rejected and withdrawn, and a second one filed August 5, 1856, which resulted in the issue of a patent to Estep, October 14, 1856.. The examiner's objection is based upon the supposition that the claim of applicant embraces the invention of Estep, who stands before the office as the prior inventor. Upon a careful examination of the applications and patents of the two parties, we arrive at a different conclusion. Although Hutchins's claim appears to be for a 'mode of operation,' we do not think it should be construed as broadly such, 'irrespective of the machine.' Both elements of the combination are limited by the phrase, 'operating substantially as described,' by which we understand the mechanism set forth in the description, whereby the operation is performed, to be included in the claim. Under such a construction the claim is not obnoxious to the objection raised by the examiner, although undoubtedly faulty in form.

Aside from this, the second element of Hutchins's claim is not found in the machine of Estep. The mechanism for and mode of reducing the cheeks by Estep's machine differ considerably from the invention de. scribed in the patent under consideration. We therefore find no valid objection to the extension on the ground of want of novelty in the invention, and, the case presenting the necessary requisites in all other respects, we recommend that the request of the petitioner be granted."

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

DECISION.

Upon the favorable recommendation of the board of examiners-inchief, by whom this case has been heard, the same having been referred to them under the provisions of section 10 of the patent law, the extension asked for will be granted.

J. W. SHEPPARD.

APPEAL FROM EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.

March 4, 1871.

In the matter of the application of J. W. Sheppard for letters-patent for a CARRIAGE-STEP, filed December 28, 1870.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The application seeks letters-patent for a carriage-step "formed of a series of triangular bars or ribs, arranged with one of the sharp edges of each uppermost," so as to prevent the foot from slipping, and the bars separated by openings in the body of the step so as to permit dirt and snow to pass through, and not form obstructions on the step.

In rejecting this application the examiner refers to Knowles's patent, issued July 22, 1870, which describes a step with large openings between bars, but the form of the bars is not named, and to Morse's patent, issued February 22, 1870, for embossed carriage-step. Morse's model in the office represents a step with "a series of triangular bars or ribs, arranged with one of the sharp edges of each uppermost," to prevent the foot from slipping.

Neither Knowles nor Morse sought to cover with their patent any particular form of step or bars, but both limited their claims to the process of manufacturing. Neither seemed to suppose that in the present state of the art any particular form of the bars or openings was patentable. Carriage-steps with openings to pass mud and ice have long been made, and the bars between these openings have been of almost all possible forms, according to the judgment or caprice of the mechanic making them. The device of the applicant is only mechanical and unworthy the name of "invention." Reference is also made to Keene's patent of June 11, 1867.

The decision of the examiners-in-chief is affirmed.

JASON A. BIDWELL.

APPEAL FROM EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.

March 4, 1871.

In the matter of the application of Jason A. Bidwell for letters-patent for an IMPROVED WOOD-SCREW.

LEGGETT, Commissioner:

The applicant on May 24, 1864, took letters-patent on a wood-screw, having a concave score or groove between the threads, throughout the entire length of the screw. He now seeks a patent for a wood-screw, the body of which may be either cylindrical or slightly tapering, with a

long, tapering gimlet-point, and either with or without a tapering shank, and having the concave score, or groove between the threads, on the taper of the point and shank, and the flat-bottomed score or groove on the body of the screw. He says, and with good reason, that the concave groove strengthens the screw at the shank and point where it is weakest, while the flat-bottomed groove on the body of the screw, giving steeper walls to the thread, adds to its holding qualities.

The examiner refuses the application, and says: "Mr. Bidwell, having already a patent for the concave score or groove between the threads, is undoubtedly at liberty to combine such form of thread with the usual form to any extent or in any proportion along the stem that may be dictated by fancy; this partial employment of his patented device is not regarded as a patentable invention or improvement." In this decision the board of examiners-in-chief concur.

It is no doubt true that Mr. Bidwell is at liberty to use his patented device in combination with the common thread to any extent he may choose. So is any one else at liberty to do the same. It is the exclusive right to make this combination that the applicant seeks. As to the novelty of the combination there is no question; that it is a useful improvement the Commissioner has no doubt.

The decision of the board of examiners-in-chief is reversed.

ISRAEL TOWNSEND.

APPEAL FROM EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF.

March 6, 1871.

In the matter of the application of Israel Townsend for letters-patent for an IMPROVEMENT IN CANAL LOCKS.

DUNCAN, Acting Commissioner:

The rejection of this application by the primary examiner was based upon the two-fold ground of lack of novelty and abandonment. Both of these grounds of rejection were held by the examiners-in-chief to be well taken, and the sufficiency of both is called in question by the present appeal.

Applicant's invention has for its object the saving of lockage water in passing boats through the locks of a canal; and it consists in constructing at the sides of the lock a chamber having two compartments, arranged one over the other, without intercommunication, but both opening into the lock, the function of these compartments being to receive a portion of the lockage water during the descent of the boat, and hold it for use when needed for accomplishing the passage of the boat in the opposite direction, instead of drawing the amount from the canal above.

As an anticipation of this invention, the examiner refers to the article on "Inland Navigation" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, (seventh edition, 1842,) in which there is briefly described the use of "side ponds" placed upon different levels, each with its independent channel connecting with the lock, and controlled by an independent gate, so as to save a greater or less amount of the lockage water, according to the number of the ponds. Reference is also made to the fuller treatise on "Reservoir Locks" by J. A. Roebling, published in the Railroad Journal and Mechanics' Magazine, December 15, 1838. This treatise also contains a description of the construction and working of open reservoirs, placed at different levels near the lock of the canal, and each communicating with the lock by an independent channel; and their function is plainly pointed out as being the same as that of the buried compartments shown by applicant. If nothing but these open reservoirs, placed outside the towpath of the canal, were described, it would still be exceedingly doubtful whether this should not be held to be an anticipation of the present invention in all its essential features. Applicant's reservoirs have no different function from those described by Roebling as in use years before his treatise was written. The principle involved was as fully developed in the earlier inventions as in the later one; and the mere change in the location of the reservoirs does not seem to introduce any change whatever in that principle. But in the concluding paragraph of Roebling's treatise it is distinctly suggested that in applying the system of reservoir locks to slack-water navigation, if the river bank on the side of the lock offers no favorable opportunity, and not sufficient room for the location of the reservoirs, without removing great obstacles as solid rocks, &c., a bridge may be constructed along the lock wall to serve as a tow-path and the reservoir be placed beneath it. Certainly there can be no invention in applying this idea, thus fully developed in relation to slack-water navigation, to a canal. The mere fact that in changing the location of the reservoirs from the outside of the embankment, and placing them under the tow-path, the one is to be built directly over the other, cannot be regarded as introducing any new princicple; and it is more than probable that such an arrangement would in practice be discarded on the score of lack of utility. The strictures of the examinersin-chief upon the proposition to build the one reservoir above the other are apparently well founded; and in view of the plain disadvantages which they point out in this construction as compared with reservoirs differently arranged, it cannot be admitted that this particular arrangement presents any patentable features.

The references cited seem to anticipate so completely the invention upon which a patent is now asked, that it is unnecessary to give the question of abandonment any extended consideration. The original application, made September 30, 1850, was withdrawn on the 29th of the following month. The present application was not filed until after the lapse of nearly nineteen years, the new petition being received on the