Application of Jacoby, Patent Appeal No. 6838.
Decision Date | 14 November 1962 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6838. |
Citation | 309 F.2d 513,135 USPQ 317 |
Parties | Application of Ben JACOBY, Jr. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Henry Powers, Edward J. Mahler, Robert Alpher, New York City, and Robert H. Bachman, Hamden, Conn., for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge JOSEPH R. JACKSON, Retired.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 33, 34, 35, and 41 in application Ser. No. 559,846, filed January 18, 1956, for "Radiator." Claims 3, 36, 37, 38, 40 and 42 stand allowed.1
Appellant's invention is disclosed as including two fluid-carrying "boiler pipes." Interconnecting these pipes are a plurality of radiator core fluid-carrying conduits. The main function of the conduits is to allow for rapid heat transfer from the fluid passing therethrough, to and through the walls of the conduits and thence to the surrounding air. The issue is the obviousness of including in the configuration of such conduits a constriction or "venturi" portion intermediate their ends. Appellant's specification discusses this configuration as follows:
Referring to the film in greater detail, the specification also states:
Claim 34 is exemplary and reads:
The claims on appeal stand rejected as unpatentable over (1) the Grenell et al. patent, No. 2,759,247, disclosing heat exchanger cores having conduits bulged out of pressure-welded seamless sheets and (2) the Merritt patent, No. 1,900,836, disclosing radiator conduits each having a single constricted or "venturi" portion intermediate their ends.2 Merritt's specification contains the following explanation of why his radiator conduits are constricted:
"An object of my invention is to so construct the liquid containing vessel that portions of the liquid contained therein will be frozen before other portions of the liquid contained therein, so that those portions of the liquid which freeze first will force by their freezing pressure the liquid which is to be frozen last to some other vessel or through an outlet provided in said vessel before freezing, thereby preventing the bursting of the vessel."
The examiner set forth his rejection, in part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Sup. Co.
...to say that a device lacks invention and that it is obvious is to state the same legal proposition in two ways. Application of Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, n. 3 (C.C.P.A.). While the use of obviousness does not begin to solve the problem of application, at least it gives us a touchstone for t......
-
Printing Plate Supply Co. v. Crescent Engraving Co.
...to say that a device lacks invention and that it is obvious is to state the same legal proposition in two ways. Application of Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, n. 3 (C.C.P.A.)." Id. 332 F.2d at "Novelty does not exist if the patented device has been anticipated by a prior device, whether patented......
-
Panduit Corporation v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.
...to say that a device lacks invention and that it is obvious is to state the same legal proposition in two ways. Application of Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, n. 3, 50 CCPA 734." Monroe Auto Equipment, supra, at One may summarize these legal requirements to provide a step-by-step inquiry of nove......
-
Ex parte Richards
... Ex parte WILLIAM JAMES RICHARDS Appeal No. 2000-1508 Application No. 08/810, 442 United States ent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board May 15, 2002 . . ... In re Jacoby , 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 U.S.P.Q. 317,. 319 (CCPA ......