¶1Langner, Perry, Card & Langner, of New York City (Thomas Ewing, of New York City, and E. F. Wenderoth, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
¶2T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
¶3Before GRAHAM., Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
¶6This case is a companion one to In re Holst (Patent Appeal No.-2539) 44 F.(2d) 873 decided concurrently.
¶7The claims (three in number) cover “ring or cap shaped member for making hermetical seals with vitreous material.”
¶8They were rejected by concurring conclusions of the Patent Office tribunals, and are brought before us by appeal from the decision of the board.
¶9The references cited are: Thomas, 946079, January 11, 1910; Housekeeper, 1293441, February 4, 1919; British patent, 15342, of 1912; British patent, 152617, of 1921.
¶10The British patent relied on is the equivalent of the German patent cited in the Holst Case, supra.
¶11There is little contention as to the Thomas and Housekeeper references showing structures which are anticipations of appellant’s structure per so, and his principal feature here, as in the Holst Case, supra,, is the use of the chrome-iron as an alloy of which is made the ring or cap that is sealed to the glass. In the first case we found the German patent, of which the British patent herein cited is the equivalent, to have been an anticipation of this feature.
¶12The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.
¶13Affirmed.