
    In re DE VAN HORNING.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted January 14, 1924.
    Decided March 3, 1924.)
    No. 1617.
    Patents <§=>21 — Substitution of parts held not invention.
    The mere substitution of materials in parts of internal combustion engine held not to involve invention. •'
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    In the matter of the application of Harry De Van Horning for a patent. From a decision refusing to allow six of applicant’s claims, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Arthur H.' Boettcher, of Chicago; 111., for appellant.
    .Theodore A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
    Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEE, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
    <§=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Nnmhered Digests & Indexes
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of-Patents, refusing to allow six of appellant’s claims for a patent, of which claim 2, here reproduced, is typical:

“2. In an internal combustion engine, a cylinder, an opening in the head of said cylinder, a water jacket in the head of said cylinder surrounding said opening, an insulating body set directly and snugly in said opening, means for clamping said body in said opening, compressible material of high heat conducting quality between said clamping means, said body and said cylinder head, and a spark gap electrode mounted in said body.”

The Examiner and the Examiners in Chief carefully considered, and in their opinions met, the arguments in appellant’s behalf. The Commissioner, after stating that the facts were clearly set forth in the decisions of the lower tribunals, said:

'“It is clear that if the porcelain shown in the Dayton patent with its washers, but omitting the metallic body portion A, were inserted in the Thomson patent in place of the plate 2, the structure of applicant would be provided. I am unable to see that this substitution would require invention.”

After consideration of the case, as presented by the record, arguments, and briefs, we are constrained to agree with the conclusion reached by the Patent Office, and, for the reasons stated in detail by the tribunals of that Office, we affirm the decision.

Affirmed.  