
    In re BECHMAN.
    No. 2949.
    Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
    May 23, 1932.
    Alexander & Dowell, of Washington, D. C. (Arthur E. Dowell and Wm. S. Hodges, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
    Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLÁÍSTD, HATPIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
   HATFIELD, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 22 and 23 in appellant’s application for a patent for an alleged invention relating to an inking mechanism for a rotary printing press.

The elaims read:

“22. In a printing press having a frame, and a plate cylinder mounted on the frame and adapted to he rotated in either direction according to the lead of the web; a single ink fountain; an ink drum mounted on the frame and adapted to be rotated in either direction adjacent the plate cylinder; independently removable brackets adapted to be secwed to the frame at either side of the drum according to the rotation of the plate cylinder; and ink distributing rollers carried by said brackets.
“23. In a printing press having a frame, and a plate cylinder mounted on the frame and adapted to be rotated in either direction according to the lead of the web; a single ink fountain; an ink drum mounted on the frame and adapted to be rotated in either direction, said frame having bracket receiving recesses therem at opposite sides of the drum shaft; independently removable brackets de-1 tachably attachable to the frame in said recesses at either side of the drum shaft; and> ink distributing rollers mounted in said brackets.” (Italics ours.),

The references are:

Meyrueis, 618,253, January 24, 1899'.

Beehman, 1,293,305, February 4, 1919.

The elements in the involved elaims which appellant relies upon as involving patenta-, hie subject-matter are defined in the itali-! cized portion of the elaims.

The patent to Meyrueis discloses a plate cylinder mounted on a frame and adapted to be rotated in either direction, according to1 the lead of the web. ;

The patent to Beehman shows a plurality j of ink distributing rollers mounted on. independently removable brackets, positioned in recesses and secured to the frame. I

In disposing of the issues, the Primary Examiner, among other things, said: “Claims 22 and 23 were rejected when the patent to Meyrueis taken in connection with the pat-j ent to Beehman. The patent to Meyrueis shows it to be old to shift the ink distributing, rollers from one side of the distributing drum1 to the other when the direction of rotation of the plate cylinder is changed. It was heldi that to mount the distributing rollers in Meyrueis upon removable brackets which may he secured at either side of the distributing drum1 would not be invention in view of Beehman in which the distributing rolls are mounted in removable brackets, the brackets being located in recesses in the sides of the frames.” The quoted statement of the Primary Examiner was approved by the Board of Appeals. I

We have carefully examined the record in the light of the contentions of counsel for, appellant, and, although it has been vigorously contended that the involved elaims define patentable subject-matter, we are unable to hold that the tribunals below reached the wrong conclusion.

In view of the fact that the issues have been fully discussed in the concurring opinions below, we deem it unnecessary to enter upon a lengthy discussion of them here. We a,re in accord with the views expressed by the tribunals of the Patent Offiee and the deei-" sion of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Affirmed.  