¶1Patents <§=>20.
¶2Increasing number of sides on cap for tire valve does not,constitute invention.
¶3Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
¶4In the matter of application of Adelbert E. Bronson for patent. Prom a decision rejecting his application, the applicant appeals.
¶5Affirmed.
¶6W. T. Estabrook, of Washington, D. C., and A. J. Hudson, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
¶7T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
¶8Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
¶10Appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, rejecting appellant’s application for a design patent for a dust cap for tire valves. The advance in the art claimed consists merely in the increase in the number of sides on the cap.
¶11We agree with the holding of the Commissioner that this does not constitute invention, and in view of the numerous citations of existing patents, anticipating appellant’s device, the decision of the Assistant Commissioner is right, and is affirmed.