
    In re STADEKER.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted March 12, 1920.
    Decided May 3, 1920.)
    No. 1306.
    Patents —Wind-shield cleaner held not to involve invention.
    A wind-shield cleaner, formed by bending a metallic rod upon itself to form a cleaning portion and a handle which can be firmly grasped, though it apparently possesses utility, held not to involve invention.
    <®=oFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Application by Gilbert I. Stadeker for patent. From a decision denying five claims, the applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. Milans and C. T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C. (A. Miller Belfield, of Chicago, 111., on the brief), for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents denying five claims for a patent on an automobile wind-shield cleaner. Claim 5 reads as follows:

“5. A device of the class’ specified, consisting of a metallic rod bent upon itself to form a cleaning portion and a handle portion, the latter portion being provided with a series of lateral bends extending from side to side in zigzag manner to form a wide, flat, vertical handle to permit the device to be firmly grasped and to rest flatwise against the palm of the operator’s hand.”

While appellant’s, device apparently possesses utility, we are constrained to agree with the Patent Office that its evolution did not involve invention. The patents to Wolfe (No. 1,171,377, February 8, 1916), De Vore (No. 525,189, August 28, 1894), and Goodrich (No. 1,211,698, January 9, 1917), as found by the Commissioner, disclose every element of the device of the issue. The decision must be affirmed.

Affirmed.  