This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner denying all of the claims, Nos. 6 and 7, in appellant’s application for a patent fbr аn alleged invention relating to improvements in indexes, particularly to the indexing of names in directories, and . is claimed to be applicable to dictionaries, etc.
The method of arranging and grouping the names is sufficiently set out in the involved claims. They read:
“6. A directory comprising a part in which surnames аre arranged phonetically with the given names of the respective surnames arranged otherwise than phonetically, and another part in which thе surnames are arranged otherwise than phonetically with reference to the section in the first-mentioned part where surnames are arranged phonetically.
“7. A directory comprising a part in which surnames are arrangеd in groups phonetically with the given names of the respective surnames аrranged alphabetically and a second part in which surnames are аrranged in columns alphabetically with references to the pages in thе first-mentioned part where surnames are arranged phonetically, the sеveral columns of the second part having at their heads designations of thе range of surnames in the respective columns.”
It is claimed by appellаnt that his alleged' invention facilitates the finding of' names in directories and the like; and that it comprises “finished tangible subject matter bearing specifically аrranged data or means, combined to produce a novel result.”
It may be observed, however, that the *669 only matter claimed to be new is the alleged novel arrangement of names.
Thе mere arrangement of printed matter on a sheet or sheets of paper, in book form or otherwise, does not constitute “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” or “any new and useful imрrovements thereof,” as provided in section 4886 of the Revised Statutes, 35 USCA § 31. Guthrie v. Curlett et al. (C. C. A.)
It is contended by ‘counsel for appellant that the decision in the ease of Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope (C. C. A.)
In that ease, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, held that so-called transfer tickets for usе by street railway traction companies, etc., involved patentablе subject-matter, and, in its decision, referred to the case of Rand, McNally & Co. v. Exchange Scrip-Book Co. (C. C. A.)
“The specifications describe a distinctive physical struсture, viz., a given combination and general arrangement of body and coupon (with the suggestion that the two parts may be printed in different colors), accompanied by ‘conventional indications’ and instructions for the use and interрretation of the ticket. But the alleged patentable novelty does nоt reside m the arrangement of the printed text, nor does such text constitute merely a printed agreement.” (Italics ours.)
It is not claimed in the ease at bar that aрpellant has invented a new physical structure or a method of producing it. It is contended, however, that his alleged novel arrangement of names in dirеctories and dictionaries is patentable subject-matter.
The issues at bar are clearly distinguishable from those involved in the Cincinnati Traction Co. Casе, supra, and other cases relied upon by counsel for appellant.
The decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.