In re Cowles

• Decision Date: 27 June 1946
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 5200.
• Citation: 156 F.2d 551,33 CCPA 1236
• Parties: In re COWLES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

33 CCPA 1236, 156 F.2d 551 (1946)

In re COWLES.

Patent Appeal No. 5200.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

June 27, 1946.

Emery, Varney, Whittemore & Dix, of New York City (Nichol M. Sandoe, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (E. L. Reynolds, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, JACKSON, and O'CONNELL, Associate Judges.

GARRETT, Presiding Judge.

After allowing claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 of appellant's application for a patent on "Apparatus for Disseminating Materials in Liquids", the Primary examiner of the United States Patent Office rejected claims 4, 5, 7 and 8. Upon appeal to the Board of Appeals, the examiner's decision was affirmed and appellant has here appealed from the board's decision.

Appellant's application states: "This invention relates to apparatus for disseminating or dispersing solids, gases or liquids in liquids. For example, the apparatus may be used for disintegrating, dispersing and maintaining in suspension divisible insoluble solids, and for breaking up and putting into solution solids which are soluble. The apparatus may also be used for disseminating gases in liquids, and for disseminating one liquid in another liquid. Such machines are adapted for a wide range of uses, as for example, for the treatment of paper stock, for defiberizing, for dissolving, for paint mixing, for the preparation of emulsions, etc."

Claim 4 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads: "4. Apparatus of the class described, comprising, a casing, a shaft extending into said casing, said shaft carrying a plurality of impellers mounted for rotation in said casing and submerged in the liquid contents of the container, each of said impellers comprising an imperforate disk having a multiplicity of vanes projecting upwardly from the upper surface of said disk and projecting downwardly from the lower surface thereof and adapted to discharge material radially outwardly therefrom, and said casing being provided with openings at opposite ends of said casing through which material may be introduced into one end and withdrawn from the other end of said casing, said material being subjected to successive action by successive sets of upwardly and downwardly projecting vanes on said impellers while passing from one opening to the other, said impellers being spaced along said shaft to permit such radially discharged material to return between the opposed faces of said disks to points axially inward of said vanes for redischarge thereby."

The references relied upon are: Foret 1,208,534 Dec. 12, 1916; Johnson 1,768,957 July 1, 1930; Preleuthner 1,819,118 Aug. 18, 1931; Brumagim 2,235,604 Mar. 18, 1941; Seyfried 2,270,480 Jan. 20, 1942.

The rejection of the appealed claims by the examiner was upon the patent to Foret in view of either Preleuthner or Seyfried taken separately. The examiner pointed out that the Foret patent shows an upright cylindrical casing which, like appellant's has an inlet at the top and an outlet at the bottom and has a rotatable shaft suspended from the top of the casing and has impellers spaced along the shaft.

The patent to Johnson, for mixing or emulsifying apparatus, shows the appellant's arrangement by which liquid is discharged radially from rotary impellers.

The patent to Preleuthner was cited by the examiner to show it was old to provide vanes on the surfaces of a rotary impeller. It was the view of the examiner that Preleuthner's vanes would cause substantially the same circulation of liquid as does the appellant's device.

The patent to Brumagin also shows appellant's arrangement by which liquid is discharged radially from rotary impellers.

The Seyfried patent shows a drink mixer agitator of the usual variety frequently seen at soda fountains in which the glass or cup or container in which the ice cream and milk or other mixed liquids and solids are placed is so adjusted as to cause the shaft containing blades to circulate inside the cup in substantially the same manner as appellant's impellers operate. These impellers or discs have surfaces which are described as being "alternately symmetrically concave and convex in concentric paths." These would seem to be the equivalent, certainly in effect upon the mixture, of appellant's impellers. This fact appellant denies.

The decision of the Board of Appeals was a rather unusual one and has drawn forth much comment and criticism from the appellant. We quote most of the decision:

"Applicant contends that Foret is for an entirely different purpose than applicant's apparatus. Foret treats juice with sulphur dioxide and applicant's specification indicates that his apparatus is for disseminating gases in liquids. The claims state no particular type of apparatus or its intended use. Thus, it will be seen that Foret's apparatus is not for an entirely different purpose as alleged in the brief.

"The claims indicate that the impellers are submerged in the liquid contents, which contents are not part of the apparatus.

"However, Foret does not disclose the discharge vanes and we find no suggestion in Foret that they be provided.

"Seyfried's vanes project upwardly and downwardly but Seyfried relates to an agitator for drink mixers and we see nothing suggestive in Seyfried for the modification of Foret, as contended by the Examiner.

"Preleuthner shows a mixer with the ribs on an impeller, but not a plurality of impellers or such a spaced plurality as stated in the claims.

"The contention is made that Seyfried shows the axial spacing of the impellers. Even so, Seyfried does not disclose the impeller diameters as related to the casing, or the casing with openings at opposite ends.

"Johnson and Brumagim are cited to show the axial impeller displacement and circulation.

"It is probable that the examiner has not combined or used the references properly in making the rejection. As we view the matter applicant's claims state little if any advance in the art over Seyfried.

"The casing or cup conventionally used with an apparatus of the Seyfried type is of such a diameter that claims 5 and 8 are fully met by this reference and while the casing used normally with the Seyfried mixer would not have openings at opposite ends, this is only a mechanical expedient as shown by Foret to make possible a continuous mixing operation. This is stated in claims 4 and 7 which also indicate the axial spacing of the impellers shown by Seyfried, the effect of the spacing being indicated in Brumagim and Johnson.

"The decision of the examiner is affirmed."

It will be noted that the board holds that the claims "state little if any advance in the art over Seyfried." The board also stated, "It is probable that the examiner has not combined or used...