-- 6597 REF I:Q6.; AS~a Paper No. 7 

• l~ .. 'ARTM-ENT OF COMMERCE., 

UN1TED S7ATES PA"rENT OFFICE 

WPSHlNGTON 

All ("()mmonie-.ition9 respe<'.'tinit &hie 

A-,. applirnliun ehouJd j?h'c Lhc Hit:Tial number, .._, date of tilina. and t".aJJZC o( HT h ~, :-ir •• 1, ,:•0.1 1 r of. i'111

l,i-ot!1, 

\', :l._,.. .~ !·••. t I I • 

:'l.··o :: .. t~.11.~.., ·: ..• ' 1.~ a:11t1t• 

~H. Vande!"Werker & C.A,.Rowe ) { ~j~ Chief of The Air Corps 

Munitions Building ~ashington, D. c. ~~~~~~~~~~~-_./ 

, / the applicant 

Ser. No. 682,09, 

Filed July 25. 19;3 

For CrJptographic S78ta 

~..-.-·-·----

·Responsive to amendment filed April 3. 1934· 

. Hebern discloses mechanism for displacirig the code 

wh~ls, and this mechanism is ·w effect a oipher-k97 tr&namitter. Applicant discloses a different fOl"JI of tranaitteP, 

distinguished .from the reference in mode of operation, and 

the clams should set out the distinctive structural detail.a 

wherebJ' the new result is achieved. Claims l to 4 are deemed 

.fully met by the reference and are accol'dinglJ' rejected. 

Ii' the keying element is nece&&a.17' to the tunct1on1ng 

--~ 

of the rest of the device, it cannot be said to be 1ndependent 

thereoi'. T"ne fact that the tape can ba replaced does not render 

it thus independent~ as any part of the apparatus may be replaced. 

Claims 6 to 10 and 18 are according17 BG&1n reJeeted for 1nac• 

curacy. 

These claims are :further rejected as 1nde.t1n1te 1n the 

inferential inclusion of the tape as an element of the mch!ne. 

Structure should be directly recited. U the t.ape 1s d1rectl7 

included as a machine part, the claims would be subject to 

rejection on the ground of aggregation• or a a an old camb1Dat1on 

of ma.chine and tape. 

In re Hawl97, 1906 c. D. 576 

Sx pa.rte Franklin. 1875 c. D. 116. 

Claims 11 and 1; recite Derel7 a catalogue of elements 

-without .1nd1eatin8 their corelation and are rejected as being 

1ndeflll1te. 

roved for Release b NSA on 12-16-2013 ursuant to E.O. 1352 

L 

i 
•:---. REF ID:A521453. --

-2-

ClaS• 11 to 1' are r&j•ted on Rebam who showa 

· •man'• tor etteoting adjustment or the comnmtatore: the 

uae c4 an az4t1tr.1'7 pbraae to designate such mechanism does 

not t!iatjngo!ah the chf•s from the reterence. Clatms d1st1ngulshed traa a reference bJ' indetini te an4 tunct1onal 

lhdtat1ona are not patentable .. 

Ex paztte ltc Culley. 382. O. G. 3. 

Cla1a 17 u rejeo:te4 u 1:ndef1n1te bi the inferential 

1Dolus1on of the "ccamect1cms"• line 4., 1t not being directly -. 

atated that the ke)-board and signalling elements are 1ntei--

connecte4. Cla'na 18 to 25 are lfiJISlarlJ' rejected. 

Cla1ll 18 la rejected as 1ndef'1n1te 1n the concluding 

clause. which recites the tape inf'erentially •. S1Jllile.rly for 

ola!.JI 20· 

The ciphering characters do not ·exist as separate . . 

ent.1t1ea• -.it are f·ormed 1n .the paper tape.. Cla1a 21 is rejected as !naecurat.e in including the key aa a tangible element 

am claim• 22. ~ .. 24 and 25 are dmilarly :rejected. u the 

tape ia 1nolu4ed these clairu will be subject to rejection 1.lllder 

In re Ha1f197 and Ex pate Franklin, supra. 

A patantal>le art ~ process is 1ndependent of any particular 

mchani•• It baa been directl7 held that a method of devising 

code measages ts unpatentable aa an art. 

BeraJld1n1 v. Tooc1. 190 Fed. Rep. 329. 

'lhe t.ersa "cl'JPtogr&ph" 1a naed 1n specification and 

cla1w to d-edpte the. whine. 1'h1a 1nacclll9&C7 should be 

carrected. 

Cld11. 5 app81l'N othevwise allowab1e. 

Examiner.