Application of Flint
| Decision Date | 16 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7113. |
| Parties | Application of Russell C. FLINT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Henry L. Brinks, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, JJ
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection of claims 11 and 12 in appellant's application serial No. 757,385, filed August 26, 1958, entitled "Releasable Hold Open Device." No claims were allowed.
The invention relates to a releasable hold open device for doors, and in particular to a new mechanism controlled by a fusible link for automatically releasing the device in case of fire to permit an open door to close, for example under the influence of a door check comprising a door closing mechanism, the latter being the prime mover in closing the door once the release is actuated.
Claim 11 is representative and reads as follows:
Appellant's device is best illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 of the specification, reproduced below. Fig. 2 is a top view, Fig. 3 a side view.
Operation of the device will be briefly explained. The arms 14 and 16 (Fig. 3) pivotally move about a vertical axis through the housing shown under numeral 38 in Fig. 3 when a door is opened or closed. Arm 16 is fastened to the door casing, arm 14 to the door. 67 is a fusible link through which spring 61 urges pawl 58 to the right to support arm 50 at its terminus 54. Under normal opening and closing of the door, support arm 50 is maintained paralled to arm 16, shoulder 53 thereby forcing pin 42 (Fig. 2) inwardly.
As long as pin 42 is urged inwardly to occupy recess 41 in boss 35, arm 16, boss 35 and friction head 31 (Fig. 3) all move as a unit. Threaded studs (not shown) integral with and extending upwardly and downwardly of non-circular section 25 (Fig.2) act when arms 14 and 16 are rotated to screw head 30 (Fig. 3) up and down relative to head 31. The horizontal surfaces of heads 30 and 31 coact frictionally to hold the door open when arms 14 and 16 subtend their greatest angle (i. e., when the door is open).
In case of fire fusible link 67 melts, pawl 58 moves left (broken lines, Fig. 2) and arm 50 swings out (broken lines, Fig. 2) to release pin 42 which is ejected by compressed spring 45. Arm 16 is then free to move about boss 35 as a secondary pivot, and the door freely closes.
The gist of appellant's invention is the construction of the pin ejection mechanism.
The sole ground of rejection is unpatentability over the following reference:1
Pollack 2,792,087 May 14, 1957
Pollack teaches a releasable hold open device shown in Figs. 1 and 2 reproduced below, which are top and side views respectively.
Pollack's device functions similarly to appellant's, arm 12 of Pollack having fusible link 53 through which spring 57 urges crank arm 48 to hold leaf spring arm 32 flush with arm 12. Normally, with spring arm 32 held down and engaged by stud 35, arm 12 and spring arm 32 move as a unit. Threaded stud 15, 17 operates, when arms 11 and 12 are pivotally moved to cause frictional engaging of surface 25 and the lower surface of plate 11.
In case of fire, fusible link 53 melts, crank arm 48 releases spring arm 32 which lifts off of stud 35 (broken lines, Fig. 2). Arm 12 is then free to rotate about post 24 as a secondary pivot, independent of friction surfaces 25 and 11.
The above discussion sufficiently illustrates for our purpose the similarities and differences of the devices. The only difference considered patentably significant by both appellant and the Patent Office is the mechanism by which the primary and secondary pivots are disengaged, viz., appellant's pin ejection system and patentee's releasable leaf spring arm.
The examiner's position as stated in his answer is (emphasis ours):
"The claims read directly on the reference except for the details of the latching means. * * * the Examiner takes the position that the spring arm 32 having the aperture and the second arm having a pin 35 which rigidly holds the second arm to the friction head (22, 25) by means of a fusible linkage (47, 57, 53) is considered to be the mechanical equivalent of applicant sic spring pin and socket for holding said arm and friction head rigidly together."
The board added (emphasis ours):
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Tarczy-Hornoch
...apparatus to perform the specific method. Such discouragement is not in accord with the policy of the Patent system. In re Flint 330 F.2d 363, 51 CCPA 1230, 144 USPQ 299, It is advantageous to the public in the promotion of progress of the useful arts, the constitutional objective of the pa......
-
Application of Ludtke
...be a new ground of rejection since Mallory was not listed by the examiner in his Answer as a reference being relied upon. In re Flint, 330 F.2d 363, 51 CCPA 1230 (1964); In re Corbin, 136 F.2d 713, 30 CCPA 1238 (1943). Likewise, although 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not mentioned, appellants felt th......
-
Ex parte Keenan
... ... claims 1-8, 10-14 and 18-24, the only claims remaining in the ... application ... We ... REVERSE and, pursuant to our authority under the provisions ... of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), enter new rejections of ... See In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016, 1019-20, 139 ... U.S.P.Q. 297, 299-300 (CCPA 1963) and In re Flint, ... 330 F.2d 363, 367-68, 141 U.S.P.Q. 299, 302 (CCPA 1964) ... With ... respect to claims 3, 8, 10-14 and 19-24, we ... ...
-
Ex parte Komoda
... ... Equivalency is not a test for ... obviousness. In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016, 1019, 139 ... U.S.P.Q. 297, 299 (CCPA 1963); In re Flint, 330 F.2d ... 363, 367, 141 U.S.P.Q. 299, 302 (CCPA 1964) ... However, ... in the instant case, we view the examiner's ... ...