Application of Bass
| Citation | 177 USPQ 178,474 F.2d 1276 |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8660. |
| Parties | Application of Oscar BASS, Jr., et al. |
| Court | United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
Norman F. Oblon, Stanley P. Fisher, Marvin J. Spivak, Arlington, Va., Clifton T. Hunt, Jr., Charles R. Rhodes, Greensboro, N. C., attorneys of record, for appellant.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ROSENSTEIN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 of application serial No. 623,721, filed March 16, 1967,1 for "Air Control System for Carding Machines." All claims are rejected on the ground of obviousness in view of the following references:
Holden 1,612,581 Dec. 28, 1926
Reiterer 3,115,683 Dec. 31, 1963
Bass, Jr. et al
(Bass) 3,315,320 Apr. 25, 1967
(filed Aug. 23, 1965)
Jenkins, Sr
(Jenkins) 3,348,268 Oct. 24, 1967
(parent filed Oct. 13, 1964)
Fuji, Japanese Patent Application No. 1025/63
published Feb. 14, 1963
Claims 1-9 are all rejected as unpatentable over Bass in view of Fuji. Jenkins was added in connection with claims 1, 6, 7, and 9 and Holden was also added in rejecting claim 9. The statutory basis of this rejection is primarily 35 U.S.C. § 103, which requires unobviousness of the claimed subject matter in view of "the prior art" of "the subject matter as a whole * * * at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." Additionally, however, 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) is relied on to establish that the prior inventions of Bass and Jenkins, as shown in their patents, are "prior art."
Claims 2-5 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 alone as unpatentable over Reiterer and Fuji, each in view of the other, those two references having clear prior art status under § 102(a) and (b).
The issues raised by this appeal are, first, whether § 102(g) makes available as "prior art," within the meaning of § 103, the prior invention of another who has not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it. Section 102(g) is set forth in full in the margin.2 The remaining issues are the obviousness of the subject matter of the several claims in view of the available prior art.
The joint invention of Bass, Jr., Jenkins, Sr., and Horvat is a vacuum system for controlling and collecting waste on carding machines. Carding is the process of cleaning, straightening, aligning, and forming textile fibers into sliver preparatory to spinning. The specification states:
During the processing of a textile web on a carding machine, the web is fed by feed roll to a lickerin which in turn transfers the web to the main cylinder of the carding machine which rotates at a surface speed of up to and sometimes exceeding thirty-five miles per hour while the web is carried beneath working flats which align and attenuate the fibres in the web. Thereafter, the web is removed from the main cylinder by a doffer roll preparatory to forming it into sliver at the calender roll.
The parts above referred to are identified in Fig. 1 of the application drawings here reproduced:
On the left, the lickerin is shown at 12 with its feed roll 14 to the left of it. The large main cylinder is in the center at 11 and the doffer roll is to its right at 13. The flats are shown in the form of an endless belt at 15. All this is conventional. The problem in such machines to which the invention is directed is explained as follows:
The rapid rotation of the lickerin and of the main cylinder creates surface air currents which swirl about the periphery of the main cylinder and are carried into the area beneath the main cylinder with the waste from the web. Such waste comprises short fibre, seeds, dirt and foreign matter, all of which is undesirable in the finished web. It is conventional practice to install a screen about the lower periphery of the main cylinder for the purpose of cleaning such waste material as just described from the card clothing on the main cylinder before that portion of the main cylinder passing over the screen again comes into contact with the web delivered to the main cylinder from the lickerin.
In the drawing, the screen is shown at 16, under main cylinder 11. The specification further states:
In the past, the surface air currents along the periphery of the main cylinder have passed through the screen with the waste material, and the air currents have propelled this waste material outwardly from the area beneath the main cylinder and into the atmosphere where it settles on webs being processed and lessens the quality of the webs. Attempts have been made to prevent the blowing of the waste material into the atmosphere by enclosing the air beneath the main cylinder in an effort to contain the waste within that area. However, the super-atmospheric pressure conditions created through continuous delivery of the surface air through continuous delivery of the surface air currents generated by the rapid rotation of the main cylinder into the area therebeneath have invariably resulted in "blowouts", that is, the propulsion of air-borne waste through openings left accidentally in the enclosure, it being virtually impossible to render the area beneath the main cylinder sufficiently air-tight to contain the ever-increasing air pressure therebeneath generated by the rotation of the cylinder and lickerin.
Directed to the solution of these problems, appellants describe their invention in general terms as follows:
To this end, there is provided a unique combination of elements which cooperate with each other to minimize the air pressure beneath the main cylinder without reducing its speed and to control the disposition of waste in the area beneath the main cylinder. More specifically, the invention comprises 1 an enclosure for the area beneath the main cylinder whereby it is rendered as airtight as practical, 2 means closely adjacent the transfer points of the web from the lickerin to the main cylinder and 3 from the main cylinder to the doffer for relieving or drawing off air pressure created through rotation of the main cylinder and lickerin to reduce the air pressure beneath the main cylinder and while also drawing off fly and lint released at said transfer points and, preferably, 4 means carried by the screen beneath the main cylinder for controlling the flow of air currents toward the center of the carding machine and away from its edges whereby to further minimize the danger of "blowouts" carrying waste into the atmosphere. Bracketed numbers ours.
The elements above identified as 2, 3, and 4 are located as indicated on Fig. 1 by the letters B, F, and J which we have added and are more particularly described by appellants as follows:
Bars or baffles 40, which extend parallel to the axis of the main cylinder, taper inwardly toward the central rib 41. The surface air currents generated by the main cylinder are thus channelled away from the sides of the screen, and towards its center. The screen is curved to fit the cylinder.
The screen 16 * * * is of the type more fully described in prior copending applications Serial No. 403,468 filed October 13, 1964 now abandoned, and Serial No. 582,191 filed September 6, 1966 by Robert Bain Jenkins, Sr. entitled SCREEN FOR CARDING MACHINES. This is the Jenkins, Sr., reference.
Claims 1 and 2 are representative (emphasis ours):
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milliken Research Corp. v. Dan River, Inc.
...show obviousness if the invention was not "abandoned, suppressed, or concealed" within the meaning of § 102(g). See Application of Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 1283-87 (CCPA 1973); Sutter Products Co. v. Pettibone Milliken Corp., 428 F.2d 639, 645-47 (7th Cir.1970). The plaintiff does not appear to......
-
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
...was known to Roeder.... Accordingly, this work by Champaigne and Mobley clearly qualifies as prior art. In re Clemens ...; In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276 (CCPA 1973)." Both parties are citing Clemens for the legal proposition that personal knowledge of non-public work is sufficient to qualify th......
-
Application of Bergy
...whose application it is being applied. See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 184 USPQ 607 (Cust. & Pat.App.1975); In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 59 CCPA 1342, 177 USPQ 178 (1973); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 59 CCPA 1382, 177 USPQ 170 8 Ananda M. Chakrabarty, according to his declaration in the re......
-
Gemveto Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Jeff Cooper Inc.
...(patent pending at time second application is filed is prior art as to later filed application). See also Application of Bass, 59 C.C. P.A. 1342, 474 F.2d 1276, 1290 (C.C.P.A.1973); Deep Welding, Inc. v. Sciaky Bros., 417 F.2d 1227, 1233 (7th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1037, 90 S.Ct.......
-
Unpredictability in patent law and its effect on pharmaceutical innovation.
...application does not become public until it is published or issues as a patent. (222.) Merges & Duffy, supra note 219, at 766. (223.) 474 F.2d 1276, 1286-87 (C.C.P.A. 1973), superseded by statute, 35 U.S.C. [section] 103 (1984), as recognized in OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,......