closed plan, ideas which shall extend, generally at least, to each and all of the several independent features or improvements. Otherwise those parts of which there is no proof of disclosure must be regarded as the independent inventions of the employee.

Then after reviewing the evidence he rendered a decision awarding priority to McKeen of thirty-one of the claims in controversy which covered the structure of the side of the car including the bracing and door-framing; the draft-rigging and the bracing in the bottom of the car; and the bolster construction. He awarded seventeen claims to Jerdone covering respectively, the queen-post construction beneath the doors; the roof construction; the floor construction; and the corner-post construction. Jerdone failed to perfect an appeal from the award and is concluded thereby as to the thirty-one claims. McKeen appealed as to the remaining claims awarded to Jerdone. Those claims were as follows:

10. In a car structure, a sill, a door-frame rigidly secured to the sill and comprising spaced door-posts defining a door-opening at the center of the sill, bolsters disposed beneath the sill adjacent its opposite ends, a truss-bar rigidly secured to the sill adjacent the bolsters and extending at an inclination to and arched over the door-frame, a corner-post rigidly secured to the extremity of the sill and extending above and below the sill, and a brace secured to the lower extended end of the corner-post and extending toward the middle of the car and rigidly secured to the sill.

17. In a car structure, spaced side sills, a draft-rigging disposed between the side sills and extending to the end of the structure, a supporting-brace rigidly secured to the oblique braces and passing beneath the draft-rigging, posts rigidly secured to the extremity of the side sills and extending both above and below the sills and braces secured to the lower extended ends of the corner-posts and extending in an incline position toward the center of the structure and rigidly secured to the sills.

18. In a car structure, spaced side sills, braces rigidly secured to the side sills and extending obliquely relative thereto, door-frames comprising spaced side posts secured to the sills and defining registering door-openings centrally of the sills, truss-bars rigidly secured to the side sills adjacent their opposite ends and extending to and arched over the door-frames, corner-posts rigidly secured to the extremities of the sills and extending above and below the sills braces secured to the lower extended ends of the corner-posts and extending toward the center of the car and rigidly secured to the side sills, and a plate rigidly secured to the upper extremities of the corner-posts and extending longitudinally of the car, and rigidly secured at its central point to the doorframe and the truss-bar.

20. In a car structure, spaced side sills, a needle-beam, extending transversely between and rigidly secured to the side sills at the longitudinal middle, queen-posts rigidly-secured sills upon opposite sides of the needle-beam, and with inclined brace portions extending toward each other, and secured to the needle-beam, and a truss-rod rigidly connected with the sill and extending beneath the queen-posts.

21. In a car structure, spaced side sills, bolsters extending transversely between and rigidly secured to the side sills adjacent their ends, a needlebeam extending transversely between the side sills at their longitudinal middles, and rigidly secured to said sills, queen-posts disposed beneath the side sills

on opposite sides of the queen-posts and having brace portions extending in reversely-inclined position to and secured upon the needle-beam, and a trussrod rigidly secured at its opposite ends to the bolsters, and extending beneath the queen-posts.

22. In a car structure a side door-frame erected upon the side sill, and comprising spaced door-posts defining a central door-opening, queen-posts rigidly secured to the said sill beneath the door-posts, and provided with brace portions reversely inclined toward each other, and truss-rods rigidly connected with the side sills adjacent their opposite ends and extending beneath the queen-posts.

23. In a car structure, spaced side sills, bolsters rigidly secured beneath the side sills adjacent their opposite ends and extending transversely relative thereto, a door-frame erected upon the side sill and comprising integral spaced door-posts arched at the top and defining a door-opening centrally of the sills, a truss-bar rigidly secured to the sills adjacent the bolsters, and extending to and arched over the door-frame, a 'needle-beam disposed transversely of the sills and centrally of the door-openings, queen-posts rigidly secured to the side sills beneath the door-posts and provided with brace portions reversely inclined extending to and secured upon the needle-beam, and a truss-rod rigidly secured at its opposite ends to the bolster and extending beneath the queen-posts.

24. In a car structure, a side sill, spaced queen-posts secured to the side sill and having brace portions extending in reversely-inclined positions and secured to the center of the sill truss-rods rigidly secured to the side sill adjacent their opposite ends and extending beneath the queen-posts, means carried by the trussrod for engaging the opposite outer faces of the queen-posts, and means carried by the truss-rod beneath the queen-posts for exerting tension upon the rod and posts.

25. In a car structure, spaced side sills, bolsters secured to and extending transversely of the sills adjacent their opposite ends, a door-frame erected upon the side sill and comprising integral side posts, and a top arched portion defining a door-opening centrally of the sill, a truss-bar rigidly secured to the sills adjacent the bolsters and extending to and arched over the arched portion of the door-frame, a needle-beam extending transversely of the car and centrally of the door-openings, queen-posts rigidly secured to the side sills beneath the spaced door-posts, and provided with brace portions reversely inclined extending and secured to the needle-beam, a truss-rod rigidly secured at its opposite ends to the bolsters and extending beneath the queen-posts, means carried by the truss-rod for engaging and bearing against the outer opposite faces of the queen-posts, and means carried by the truss-rod between the queen-posts for exerting tension upon the truss-rod and the queen-posts.

26. In a car strugure, spaced side plates, spaced arched carlines secured at their opposite ends to the said plates, and having upstanding flanges, a roofplate having its edges turned at right angles to the plate and curved to conform to the curvature of the carlines, and with a curved portion formed along its longitudinal middle proportioned to cover one carline, a cap covering one upstanding edge of the roof-plate, and a flange of one carline removable means for securing the cap upon the carlines, and removable means for securing the intermediate curved portions of the roof-plate upon the intermediate carlines.

27. In a car structure, spaced side lines, and a single center beam, transverse beams rigidly secured at their opposite ends to the center beam and the side sills, and arranged in pairs, floor-plates disposed upon the transverse sills and having their opposite edges turned downward between the pair of sills, and means for clamping the downwardly-turned edges of the floor-plates between the sills.

28. In a car structure, a center beam, and side sills spaced upon opposite sides of the center beam, transverse sills disposed between the center beam and the side sills, and having portions at each end turned at right angles and secured rigidly to the said center beam and sill, the said transverse beams being arranged in pairs, a floor-plate disposed upon the transverse sills and having its edges turned at right angles to the plate and disposed between the pairs of transverse sills and with edges adjacent the sides of the structure turned upwardly, and means for clamping the downwardly-turned floor edges adjacent the transverse sills.

32. In a car structure, queen-posts forming an arch beneath the center of the car.

33. In a car structure, a side sill, queen-posts disposed beneath the center of the side sill and provided with members forming an arch.

34. In a car structure, a side sill, queen-posts disposed beneath the sill and forming an arch, and a truss-rod having its opposite ends connected with the sill and disposed beneath the queen-posts.

35. In a car structure, a side sill, queen-posts disposed beneath the middle of the sill and provided with inclined portions extending toward each other and forming an arch, and means for supporting and exerting tension upon the queenposts.

36. In a car structure, a side sill, spaced queen-posts disposed beneath the middle of the sill, and having portions extending along and secured to the sill, and with inclined portions extending toward each other and forming an arch, and means disposed beneath and to support the queen-posts.

The Examiners-in-Chief affirmed the decision appealed from. McKeen then appealed to the Commissioner who affirmed the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief; and he has taken a final appeal to this

court.

All of the testimony in the record was introduced by McKeen. Jerdone, having taken no testimony, stands upon his office record and patent.

The first contention on the part of the appellant is that these seventeen counts should be awarded to him on the issue of priority merely, because they are not patentably distinguishable from the subjectmatter clearly conceived by him and shown in certain exhibit drawings. We have already quoted the conclusion of the Examiner as to the independence of the inventions set forth in the appealed claims from those found to have been invented by McKeen. The Examiners-in-Chief expressed the same opinion, and so did the Commissioner. We make the following extract from his opinion on this point:

The subject-matter in controversy, railway-cars, belongs to a well-developed art in which inventors have specialized and the various parts of the car have often become the subject-matter of separate patents. Although the various parts of a car, such as the roof, the doors, the floor, the side construction, the draft-rigging, etc., are related and coöperate to a certain extent, they are susceptible of improvement, separately and such improvements in these parts may constitute independent inventions and be patented separately. While one inventor may therefore originate the general plan of a novel car for which he

is entitled to a patent, and also specific constructions of the various parts which he may also cover, other inventors are likewise entitled to a patent protection for the invention of different specific improvements in the various parts.

We agree with the Commissioner's conclusion.

The substantial question in the case is whether McKeen had these particular combinations conceived in his mind, and communicated them to Jerdone in order to have them worked out.

It is a well-established principle of the patent law that where an inventor employs another to embody his conception in a drawing or in practical form, he is entitled to any improvement thereon due to the mechanical skill of the employee. (Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall., 583; Collar Co. v. Van Dusen, 7 O. G., 919; 23 Wall., 530; Milton v. Kingsley, C. D., 1896, 420, 426; 75 O. G., 2193, 2195; 7 App. D. C., 531; Heubel v. Bernard, C. D., 1900, 223; 90 O. G., 751; 15 App. D. C., 510; Gedge v. Cromwell, C. D., 1902, 514; 98 O. G., 1486; 19 App. D. C., 192; Gallagher v. Hastings, C. D., 1903, 531; 103 O. G., 1165; 21 App. D. C., 88; Flather v. Weber, C. D., 1903, 561; 104 O. G., 312; 21 App. D. C., 179; Sendlebach v. Gillette, C. D., 1904, 597; 109 O. G., 276; 22 App. D. C., 168; Kreag v. Geen, C. D., 1907, 502; 127 O. G., 1581; 28 App. D. C., 437; Larkin v. Richardson, C. D., 1907, 508; 127 O. G., 2394; 28 App. D. C., 471; Robinson v. McCormick, C. D., 1907, 574; 128 O. G., 3289; 29 App. D. C., 98; Braunstein v. Holmes, C. D., 1908, 341; 133 O. G., 1937; 30 App. D. C., 328.)

But while an employer is to be protected from the bad faith of his employee, the employee is equally entitled to protection from the rapacity of his employer. If therefore he goes farther than mechanical skill enables him to do and makes an actual invention, he is entitled to its benefit.

To claim the benefit of the employee's skill and achievement it is not sufficient that the employer had in mind a desired result, and employed one to devise means for its accomplishment. He must show that he had an idea of the means to accomplish the particular result, which he communicated to the employee, in such detail as to enable the latter to embody the same in practical form. (Robinson v. McCormick, C. D., 1907, 574; 128 O. G., 3289; 29 App. D. C., 98.)

It remains to apply these principles to the facts disclosed by the record.

The history of McKeen's general purpose, as stated in the brief in his behalf, is substantially this:

Subsequent to the development of an all-steel gasolene-motor car McKeen undertook in May or June, 1905, the design of an all-steel box or freight car adapted to stand the severe conditions of practical railway traffic. He conceived certain novel ideas, whereby the weight of the car could be materially reduced without sacrifice of strength

or stiffness. Broadly speaking, the members were to be so disposed and related one to another in the form of either struts or tension members that the great strength of the metal in a longitudinal direction could be utilized and all binding stresses reduced to a minimum. A further idea was so to form the car that a shock or jar at any point would be communicated to the entire car and evenly diffused throughout the frame rather than met and resisted locally by the part receiving the same. It is then said:

Obviously these ideas were susceptible of various embodiments, and one thoroughly imbued with the teachings of their originator might readily vary their form of embodiment and nevertheless retain their essential advantages.

Founded on this statement, the contention of the appellant is outlined as follows:

After laying out this work, McKeen called in his subsidiary engineering officers (the witnesses Felters and Dailey) and disclosed to them his ideas. Jerdone was then assigned to the work of laying out the design of the car, as every confidence was reposed in his integrity, and as he had formerly done some work in car-designing. This Jerdone, during his entire employment by the Union Pacific Railway, was not only in the department of, but was directly under the supervision of McKeen; some of the time, it is true, he acted as inspector, supervising the construction of cars building for the railroad by other parties, and at other times he was employed in the drafting-room on plans for cars built by the railroad itself. At all times his work was, however, subject to the supervision of McKeen, and he was under McKeen's orders. Prior to taking up the work on the subject-matter of this interference, Jerdone had been employed in the drafting-room, then was again placed on some inspecting work and then in the month of September, 1905, took up his all-steel box-car design, all of this work being under the supervision of McKeen. In December, 1905, his work on this design being somewhat unsatisfactory, he was again given inspecting duties in the supervision of the construction of cars by other parties. At the time Jerdone was taken from his active work, the car so far as its leading features were concerned, was laid out, but other draftsmen were called in to complete the work on the drawings and supply some minor details. The work was then submitted to the traffic department of the Union Pacific Railroad, and objection was made to certain features of the car having no relevance herein; as for example, the width and height of the door were believed to be insufficient for readily loading and unloading certain kinds of freight. This necessitated the remaking of the drawings and with delays of material, it was not until the summer of 1906 that actual work on the construction of the car, of which two slightly-different forms were built, could be commenced. The working drawings of these two cars were respectively completed July 6 and July 28, 1906, McKee's Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9 being reissued forms of these drawings, identical save in minor details.

The proposition of McKeen before stated, assumes more than is warranted by the state of the art at the time that he conceived his designs.

Metal cars of various kinds were in use at the time and had been devised for the purpose of improving upon the old styles of cars in respect of weight, durability, and resisting strength. Many inventors