Commissioner of patents decision in the Boch law suit against Fred Locke

THE THREE-PART INSULATOR PATENT

On February 11th last, the Commissioner of Patents submitted a decision on a motion made to dissolve an interference that had been granted to Fred M. Locke, of Victor, N. Y., relative to the three-part or multi-glaze heretofore described in these columns as the "Boch Multi-Glaze Insulator". The interference is numbered 13,969 and the examiner's decision is as follows:

Dissolution of this interference is asked by Boch on the grounds:

First, that Locke's claims are not patentable;

Second, that Locke has no right to make the claims;

Third, that there has been such irregularity in declaring the interference as will preclude the proper determination of the question of priority of invention, and

Fourth, that no interference in fact exists.

The issue of the interference is as follows:

"An insulator formed of two or more shells of suitable insulating material, and which are secured together by inserting one into the other, and then fusing them so as to form practically a single piece."

By inadvertence this is said in the letter to the Examiner of Interference to be substantially claim 3 of Boch. It is really the 3rd claim of Locke. Boch's claims included in the interference differ from the issue as stated in that they specifically include a layer or layers of glaze as a means of uniting the shells of which the insulator is composed. Upon referring to Boch's specification, it will be seen that the glaze that is interposed is merely the coating of glaze that is ordinarily found on porcelain ware. Locke says nothing about the glaze, but it is fair to presume in the absence of proof to the contrary that he employed the usual and ordinary processes of porcelain manufacture. An insulator was shown at the hearing on the motion that was said to be one of Locke's, which was made of two pieces cemented together with what appeared to be sulfur, but there was no evidence that it was what the application of Locke in this interference was intended to cover. Locke says that he connects the shells by "placing of one within the other and then fusing or otherwise securing them together." The words "or otherwise securing" have been stricken from the claims in view of a reference, and have no signification in the description. The Examiner is clearly of the opinion that the terms of the description and claims require that after the shells are put together, the temperature must be raised so high that the parts become, at least superficially soft and adhesive, so that they become practically a single piece.

The issue is in the terms of the broad claim of Locke, as it must necessarily be according to practice in the office.

The Examiner fails to find in the reference citied in support of the motion anything to show either that Locke's claims are not patentable or that Locke is not entitled to make the claims in his application. There is an interference in fact between Locke's generic and Boch's specific claims, and no irregularity in the declaration is found that would preclude a proper determination of the question at issue.

The motion is denied. If there is any ground for the third and fourth reasons for dissolution that is not based on the first and second appeal may be taken thereon on or before the 24th day of February, 1898.