Application of Lemelson

• Decision Date: 27 June 1968
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 7980.
• Citation: 158 USPQ 275,397 F.2d 1006
• Parties: Application of Jerome H. LEMELSON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

158 USPQ 275, 397 F.2d 1006 (1968)

Application of Jerome H. LEMELSON.

Patent Appeal No. 7980.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

June 27, 1968.

R. J. Lasker, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C. (Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, SMITH, ALMOND and KIRKPATRICK,^* Judges.

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 7 and 10-19 of application serial No. 78,484, filed December 27, 1960, entitled "Optical Devices." Appellant has withdrawn claims 16-19, as to which the appeal will be dismissed. As to the others we affirm.

The only issue is patentability of the claimed subject matter over the following prior art references relied on by the board:

                  Slayter               2,311,613             Feb. 16, 1943
                  Biefeld et al.        2,723,215             Nov.  8, 1955
                                                       (filed May  31, 1950)
                  Squires               2,758,342             Aug. 14, 1956
                                                       (filed May  17, 1952)
                

During the prosecution there has been argument as to whether appellant was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application, serial No. 360,954, filed June 11, 1953. It was held he was entitled to it as to certain claims but it is no longer of importance as it will be observed that all of the above patents have effective dates as references earlier than June 11, 1953. In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859, 53 CCPA 1288.

Appellant's "optical devices" consist simply of transparent filaments, such as glass fibers or monofilaments, embedded in symmetrical longitudinal array in transparent plastic, such as nylon. His drawings contain three figures showing a rod-like member of plastic having a circular array of glass monofilaments embedded in it just below the surface; a bundle of filaments of generally circular cross section, the filaments being surrounded by and embedded in a transparent plastic; and a flat sheet of plastic with a layer of transparent monofilaments parallel to one surface. Various proposed uses of such articles are as light-reflecting media or for transmitting light longitudinally of the filaments (piping light). Appellant's specification explains that to function in these uses his filamentary material and the enclosing transparent plastic must have different indices of refraction. For example, he may use glass filaments of a glass having a high index of refraction and a plastic material surrounding it having a lower index of refraction but, broadly, the requirement is simply that the indices of refraction be different. Appellant appears to regard that as "the salient feature of all claims * * *."

Claim 7 is illustrative and reads:

7. A fiber optical device comprising in combination, a plurality of flexible, cylindrical transparent mono-filaments which are elongated in shape a sheaving surrounding said mono-filaments, said sheaving totally encapsulating said filaments and comprising a transparent flexible material having a substantially cylindrical external shape and having an index of refraction which is different from the index of refraction of the material of said encapsulated mono-filaments, said mono-filaments being arranged in a substantially symmetrical array and extending along the entire length of the device.

Claims 10-12 are directed to the sheet form and describe the filaments as glass. Claim 13 is directed to a bundle of glass filaments of high refractive index encapsulated in plastic of lower index. Claim 14 would cover a single monofilament of high refractive index glass coated with a protective light transmitting material of lower refractive index. Claim 15 is similar but calls for a bundle of monofilaments.

Slayter's invention is concisely described in his claim 1:

1. A flexible, non-porous, transparent plastic organic material having the appearance of glass, and a plurality of attenuated glass fibers embedded in said plastic material to form a clear transparent body free from interstitial spaces or voids, said transparent glass fibers having a diameter less than 10 microns, the indices of refraction of said glass fibers and said plastic being the same, whereby the embedded glass fibers optically disappear.

He illustrates the use of his material in a drinking glass or tumbler. To make his plastic tumbler...