
    In re MIDGLEY.
    Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
    October 4, 1929.
    Patent Appeal No. 2119.
    Edward C. Taylor and Robt. P. Harvey, both of Chieopee Falls, Mass., for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. CL, for appellee.
    Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
   GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.

The appellant filed his application for a patent on a process and apparatus for incorporating cords in rubber sheets. It is stipulated that claim numbered 1, rejected by the various tribunals in the Patent Office, is the only one in issue here. This claim is as follows:

“1. The method of building a composite sheet of rubber and parallel cords which consists in feeding the cords in parallel relation under equalized tension applying them while in this condition to a sheet of rubber traveling at the same speed as the feed of the cords, locating all the cords on the rubber at the meeting point of the cords and rubber by rolling pressure in the predetermined positions they are to occupy with relation to one another, holding them in such position until they adhere to the rubber, and then applying additional rolling pressure on the entire surface of the cord and rubber sheet to canse the cords to sink further into the sheet.”

This claim sufficiently sets forth the essential elements of appellant’s invention, without further description. The First Assistant Commissioner justifies Ms rejection of tMs claim by reference to a United States patent to Marquette, No. 1,321,223, issued November 11, 1919.

An examination of tbe drawings and specifications of the Marquette reference fully justifies tbe action of tbe .Patent Office upon tbis claim. In tbe Marquette patent, cords, under tension and properly spaced by corrugated rolls, are passed between sheets of unvuleamzed plastic rubber, through fluted rollers, resulting in a sheet of corrugated surfaced rubber cord fabric. Marquette claims that by tbis method be avoids crushing tbe cords, thus making an improvement upon tbe ordinary process of making such fabric with flat surfaces; that by exerting tbe pressure upon tbe rubber sheets, between tbe parallel cords, the fabric is formed without injury to tbe cords. Appellant claims bis process of pressing tbe cords into tbe rubber and tbe production of a flat-surfaced fabric differs radically from tbe Marquette process.

We are unable to observe any real difference. Tbe pressure exerted upon tbe rubber by the' Marquette fluted rollers is, nevertheless, laterally, at least, a pressure extending over tbe entire surface of tbe cords. Tbe methods are practically tbe same, and obtain practically similar results. Tbe contour of tbe surfacé is an unimportant mechanical detail, and one that might easily be altered, at pleasure.

Furthermore, it is quite obvious, from an examination of tbe Marquette specifications, that a flat-surfaced cord fabric was well known to tbe art at tbe time of their filing, and is therein fully disclosed. To quote:

“Various methods have heretofore been devised for tbe proper covering of tbe cords, and for the production of cord fabric. But certain of these processes were slow, while other and more rapid ones entailed tbe subjecting of tbe cords to pressure, distortion, strain, and breaMng of tbe fibers. Of tbis latter class were those processes wMcb included tbe passing of tbe cords and tbe rubber stock between calender rolls, while causing sufficient pressure between tbe rolls to work tbe stock down between tbe cords, and stick it to tbe cords. Tbe difficulty was that tbe 'high pressure, applied over tbe whole width of tbe sheet, not only acted on the rubber, but, unfortunately, acted also to flatten, distort, and disrupt tbe cords, and cords so abused resulted in a fabric whose cords were of inferior quality and wearing properties. Yet this calender method bad tbe very real advantages of rapid and continuous production of sheets of indefmite length, performance by simple and easily procured macMnes, and simple technique.”

We conclude that tbe decision of tbe Commissioner is right, and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.  