removing all free oil, and then immediately subjecting the wood to the action of a vacuum." We agree also that the evidence is sufficient to show that Lowry, prior to the experiments with the Ruping process at Perth Amboy, in April, 1904, had begun plans for the erection of the Shirley plant, which were diligently followed by completion and the practice of the process on a large scale.

For the reasons given, the decision will be affirmed.

It is so ordered, and that this decision be certified to the Commissioner of Patents. Affirmed.

DE KANDO v. ARMSTRONG.

PATENTS; KNOWLEDGE OF CONCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE; DRAWINGS AS REDUCTION TO PRACTICE; REDUCTION TO PRACTICE; FOREIGN INVENTIONS, REDUCTION TO PRACTICE OF.

1. The knowledge sufficient to defeat a patented invention, or the right to a patent for an invention which has been reduced to practice, must be more than mere knowledge of a conception or disclosure of a conception.

2. The representation of the conception of an idea by means of drawings is not such an embodiment into practical and useful form as will negative novelty.

3. An invention cannot be completed by anything short of a reduction to practice. (Following Nelson v. Faucette, 33 App. D. C. 217.)

4. An invention is reduced to actual practice prior to the filing date only when a mechanical embodiment of it is made in such form as to be capable of practicable and successful use. (Following Sherwood v. Drewson, 29 App. D. C. 161.)

5. Where the senior party to an interference conceived his invention about three years before he filed his application, which was the date of his reduction to practice, and between the time of his conception and the time of the filing of his application, the invention was conceived by the other party, a foreign inventor, used abroad and disclosed, but not reduced to practice in this country,-it was held that the senior

party was entitled to an award of priority notwithstanding his conceded lack of diligence in actually reducing to practice.

No. 694. Patent Appeals. Submitted May 8, 1911. Decided May 24,

1911.

HEARING on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference case.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. J. Edgar Bull for the appellant.

Affirmed.

Mr. Albert G. Davis and Mr. Arthur A. Buck for the appellee.

Mr. Justice VAN ORSDEL delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal [by Coloman DeKando] from the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority of invention to appellee, Albert H. Armstrong, the senior party. The invention relates to the control of induction motors used in the movement of railway cars, and is described in the opinion of the Examiners-in-Chief as follows:

"The interference relates to improvement in the control of induction motors when used in the propulsion of railway cars in which the wheels of the same car, or of different cars in the same train, are apt to differ in diameter. When two like induction motors derive their current from the same source, they revolve at the same angular speed; but where the wheels are of different diameters, and the motors are connected to the axles, this relation is impossible. The difference in diameter necessitates different angular velocities. For the purpose of overcoming this difficulty and properly distributing the load upon the motors, a permanent resistance is placed in the secondary circuit of the motor, which is driven by the wheels of larger diameter for the purpose of increasing the slip, while giving the same torque, and thus equally distributing the load."

Opinion of the Court.

The issue is as follows:

[37 App

"1. In combination with a vehicle, a plurality of induction motors mechanically connected to the driving wheels of said vehicle, means under the control of the motorman for controlling said motors simultaneously, and means for adjusting the relative torque of said motors.

"2. In combinations with a vehicle, a plurality of induction motors mechanically connected to the driving wheels of said vehicle, means under the control of the motorman for controlling said motors simultaneously, and means for adjusting independently the relative resistances of the secondary circuits of said motors.

"3. In combination with a vehicle, a plurality of induction motors mechanically connected to the driving wheels of said vehicle, a controlling switch adapted to vary simultaneously the resistances in the secondary circuits of said motors to control the speed of the vehicle, and means for adjusting independently the relative resistances in the secondary circuits of said motors to vary the relative speed torque characteristics of said

motors.

"4. In combination with a vehicle, a plurality of induction motors mechanically connected to the driving wheels of said vehicle, a switch under the control of the motorman for controlling said motors simultaneously, and independent adjustable resistances placed near the several motors and connected in their secondary circuits."

On June 28, 1905, appellee filed an application in the Patent Office for a patent on the invention in issue, which was granted February 6, 1906. Appellant's application was filed July 3, 1906. With the filing dates before us, we will review briefly what the respective parties did prior to entry into the Patent Office. It appears that appellant made his invention abroad, and put it into actual use prior to the spring of 1904 on what is known as the Valtellina Railway in Italy. It appears that in March, 1904, one Waterman went to Europe and met the appellant at Budapest, where the details of appellant's invention were explained to him. He also saw the invention in

use on the Valtellina road in Italy. In addition, appellant furnished Waterman with an elaborate written description of the invention. That document, together with notes he had made, Waterman brought with him to the United States, where he arrived on May 5, 1904. Within a few days after his arrival, he communicated his information in detail to one Stillwell, a distinguished electrician in New York. Waterman made a preliminary written report to Stillwell on June, 7, 1904. During the following year Waterman described the invention to a number of electrical engineers, among whom was one De Muralt, now professor of electrical engineering in the University of Michigan. It also appears that Waterman explained the invention to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers on June 19, 1905.

Appellee testified that the conception of this invention occurred to him in 1894 or 1895, when he was considering the problem involved in three-phase induction motors. Two parties are named by him with whom this problem was discussed. One witness, Berg, testifies that between 1893 or 1894 and 1897 he and appellee worked together on the designing of induction motors and alternating current generators. It also appears that about 1897 appellee prepared designs for a control system which was used in what was known as the Varese railway line in Italy; and that while the system used in that line was not the one of the invention, appellee discussed the present invention with two witnesses, Berg and Steinmetz, at that time. Steinmetz testifies that Armstrong disclosed the invention to him as early as 1894 or 1895. This disclosure he says embraced the idea of a permanent resistance to take care of the problem of unequally sized wheels. The dates of disclosure fixed by appellee's witnesses vary from 1894 to 1901 or 1902. It was, however, found by the tribunals of the Patent Office that the matters disclosed by appellee did not embrace the present invention, and that the appellee is not entitled to a date of conception prior to 1902.

Appellee, in his statement, alleges conception and disclosure of the invention in 1895; that drawings were made May 8,

1905; that no model was made, and that he has never embodied the invention in a full-sized machine. Proof of what the appellee actually did has been greatly simplified by the following statement of his counsel in their brief: We, of course, do not make any claim that Armstrong was diligently proceed-. ing to reduce his invention to practice from the time when he first conceived it, up to the time when he filed his application. We do claim that he has definitely proven a date of conception at least as early as 1902; that when he saw an opportunity to use his invention commercially, he wrote his attorney about it, and that his attorney diligently filed a patent application for Armstrong." Conception of the invention was, we think, correctly accorded appellee by the Patent Office as early as 1902. From the statement of counsel, his filing date must be fixed as the date of constructive reduction to practice. Appellee, therefore, had not reduced the invention to practice at the time of the disclosure of Waterman. This narrows the case to a single question of law: Was the knowledge possessed by Waterman and disclosed by him to others skilled in the art and competent to understand it, with sufficient clearness to enable them to have reduced the invention to practice, equivalent to a reduction to practice of the invention in this country? If it was not, it is clear that appellee must prevail.

Section 4886, Rev. Stat., U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3382, provides that before an inventor is entitled to a patent, his invention must not have been "known or used by others in this country before his invention or discovery thereof, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof." It appears from this that before an inventor is entitled to a patent for his invention four things must not exist, the invention. must not be known by others in this country; it must not be in use or have been used in this country; it must not have been patented in this or any foreign country; it must not have been described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country. It must be conceded that on appellee's filing date, his date of reduction to practice, appellant's foreign