¶1Patents <®=>I9 — Change involving addition of nail holes in patent .rubber heel lift not invention.
¶2A change involving addition of two nail holes in a patent rubber heel lift,?iel(L not to constitute invention.
¶3Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
¶4In the matter of the application of John G. Tufford. From a decision refusing 27 claims, applicant appeals.
¶5Affirmed.
¶6W. T. Estabrook, of Washington, D. C., and F. O. Richey, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
¶7Theodore A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
¶8Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
¶10Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing 27 claims for a patent on a heel lift.
¶11Appellant patented a rubber heel lift, spherically concave and spherically convex on its attaching and its tread faces, respectively. Four holes were provided, through which nails were driven to attach it to the shoe. It was found that the tension of the rubber had a tendency to withdraw the nails. Appellant therefore .added two holes, and positioned (claim 8) each “substantially the same distance from the side edges or margins of the heels, and with one or more centrally arranged nail-receiving openings within the first-named plurality of openings.”
¶12The present application was filed to cover this change. The various tribunals of the Patent Office have very carefully considered applicant’s contentions, and each has found that the addition of these two nail holes, and their positioning with reference to the others, does not constitute invention. With that conclusion we fully agree, and, for the reasons stated in detail by the Office, affirm the decision.
¶13Affirmed.