... 

-=· -

., 

P.H.Vanderwerker & a.A.Rowe 

o/o Chier or the Air Corps 

ltfmlit1ona.Bu1ld1ng 

Washington, D. c. 

'---~~~~~~~~~~--

Responsive to m:iendment.f'iled. li'•bruuT 6, 19'4• 

Additional re1'erence made of records 

IIebern, 1,683,072·, nept.4,1928, 35-13 

. 

. 

Claims 3-17, 19-23, 25-32, 3J,.-5o are 1n the caae. 

Pqe 6, lines 18 and 20, the drawinga aboul.c1 ~ 

amended in· Fig.2 to Show the p1na. I.1.ne 23, it 1• not 

clear how Fig.2 represents "permutat1cme". ·All part• at 

the draw1D8B llhould be numbered and. 4e11ar1bed 1n atruoture 

and .function. now the pina operate the J.evei-a 1• not 

clearl7 shown or described. Line 15. how the ratchet wheel. 

ot F1g.3 la related to the cipber-wlwel an4 how the atcMt.a . . 

are related to member 24, ae-•ngl7 to -.Jc a contact at 

J,.o shm."tld be explained since the :ratchet teeth 23 appear 

to be r1erel7 set into a pa.rt ot the cipher wbeel. Fig. 3 

shows parts adjacent 24 and ~1 not numbered, nor described 

in detn:tl. ':'he structure of t~1ese parts ap~ar~ to be d.11'-

.feront 111 ·f.'lG.1 i':rom tllB.t in ::"1.g.3. ~'he drawincs shonld be 

condtant. 1A1ne 23 and line 22, together. indicate that 

Pig.5 show• the connectiona. Fig.6 alone ac:tual17 ahon 

them.· The text should be m;1endad aa suggested b7 this 

c1 .. .:.ttlclsm. 

Pnge G, line· 12, the arrow does not •ma to 1ndioate 

the tendency ai' ::.1ovement of vt·.eel 52 due to r10i;er.1ent ~ wheel 

·.40. r ... 1ne ·21, operation of armature 41 and ·magnet 25 ia not 

clear. Line 23, "methods" a."1.ould be -means-• 
REF ID:A521790 • ,.._ 1'. - wl'b tnv.t.ei1 - •• leas u• 

~ 11- ' •PPHN to 1le NqU1l'e4 dHzt "..s.,._...• ~ 

line 8. 

01a1m 35, 11ae 5. 8hoal4 ....... qa.11t)'• be 

•1aequal1'J'-T 

Olai.a ,&. ti. a1gn.U'1oanoe ~ "unlnM111g1b1e• 

la not aeen. It Mems to be immaterial whether 11117 

11UOCeaa1on ot lettere on the r1bboll8 apell• a word 1n 

some language or other or note •randmn• alao appear• 

laold.ng in a1gn11'1oance. Appearentl7 8 arranged • • • • 

order" m.1ght be oanoeled without injurJ" to the ol•'•• 

Claims ,-17. 19-23. 25-32. 38. 39 appear allowable. Theae claim.a are drawn to the article. 

Cla1ma 34. 35. '6• 37 are rejeoted as anticipated 

by Hebern in which the ciphering elmenta are considered 

aa bearing the key. 

Claima 35. 36. 37 are rejected aa intangible and 

theref'ore t'a111ng to det'1ne the invention in ke7. line 6. 

Claims 36, 37 are turther rejected as intangible 1n "sequence". A "sequence" cannot produce physical changes. 

Claims 40-50 are rejected as unpe.tentable under 

the .tollowing decisions: Foreman, 19~ C.D. 47J "Patentable novelt7 can not be based on positive recitations ~ 

structural limitations therein". 

Sweetland, 1922 G.D. 6. Thia dec1•1on is applicable although it rel.a.tea to method claims 1n an application subsequent to a patent to the aame inventor having 

claims to the article disclosed in the application. "The 

claims -rw .the alleged method reviewed and held that they 

do not recite a patentable method but are tor the obvious 

and intended uae ot the apparatus covered by the claima o.t 
l 

Serial No. 588,3114 

REF ID:A521790 

+ 

the patent". It 1• conaidered immaterial that the ~ 

method claims appeared in a ditrerent am aubaequent application in the ref'uaal baaed on the word.a quoted. 

These cla1ma a:i-e a1ao rejected on the ground that 

they do not recite ateps by the fo11ow1.ng or which a 

physical change is wrought in a physical object. Dec1• 

sions in support of this view are: Turner. 1894 c. D. '6 

or Cochrnne et al. v. Deener et al., 1877 c.n. 24,2. 

This application has been tranaferred from 

Division 16 to Division 53 tor examination 1n Claes 35-13. 

It is regretted that action not 1n harmony with previowa 

actions imrnt be given. 

Examiner.