Application of Olson, Patent Appeal No. 6045.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1954
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 6045.
• Citation: 212 F.2d 590
• Parties: Application of OLSON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

212 F.2d 590 (1954)

Application of OLSON.

Patent Appeal No. 6045.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

March 23, 1954.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1954.

Andrew E. Carlsen, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

E. L. Reynolds, Washington, D. C. (H. S. Miller, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON, Judges.

O'CONNELL, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office sustaining the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting claims 24 to 27, inclusive, of appellant's application for a patent on alleged improvements in couplers for hydraulic hose lines and the like. No claims were allowed.

The cited references are:

Tessner 1,114,937 Oct. 27, 1914; Mitton 1,721,349 July 16, 1929; Smith et al. 2,307,427 Jan. 5, 1943; Frank 2,313,223 Mar. 9, 1943; Johnson et al. 2,322,449 June 22, 1943; Ulrich 2,533,640 Dec. 12, 1950.

Claim 24 is illustrative and reads as follows:

"24. A coupler for releasably connecting hydraulic fluid conduits comprising, a pair of disconnectable body members having tubular bores extending longitudinally therethrough and disposed end to end with the bores in communicating alignment, means carried by and releasably connecting the adjacent end portions of the body members to retain them in fixed alignment and seal them against the escape of fluid from between the communicating ends of the bores, the adjacent ends of the bores each having a valve seat of lesser diameter than the bore, a pair of valve balls disposed one in each of the bores adjacent the respective seats for projecting therethrough and closing thereagainst to prevent the escape of fluid from the conduits when the body members are disconnected, said valve balls being operative by contact pressure between their projected portions, when the body members are being connected, to unseat each other from their respective valve seats, springs urging the balls toward the respective valve seats, a pair of ball stop members having threaded base portions screwed into the outer end portions of the respective bores so as to be rigidly stationary therein, a stem portion extending rigidly inwardly from each of the base portions, and a head portion integral with each of the inner ends of the stem portions, said base portions having fluid passageways in substantial alignment with annular fluid passageway defined by the inner surfaces of the bores and outer surfaces of the said balls, head portions and stem portions, said ball stop head portions being equally spaced with respect to their associated valve seats to receive the balls when they are unseated from their valves by connecting the body members, and said ball stop heads also being terminally recessed to center the balls with respect to the valve seats when the body members are connected and the valve balls are in full valve opening position." Italics supplied.

The claims were all disallowed, among other reasons, on the ground that they were unpatentable over the art of record. The main ground of rejection, however, in this case resides in the concurring decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office to the effect that the limitation relating to the ball centering means being equally spaced from the valve seats, recited in each of the respective claims, is new matter, not presented in the original specification, and not clearly shown in the drawing. The primary issue was thus summarized and approved by the board to the following effect:

"Claims 24 through 27 stand rejected as being directed to new matter. It is the Examiner\'s position that these claims all include the following: `said ball stop head portions being equally spaced with respect to their associated valve seats to receive the balls when they are unseated from their valves by connecting the body members,\' which appears in lines 29 to 32 of claim 24, or equivalent language therein, and that there is no basis for such a recitation anywhere in the original disclosure.

"Appellant states that this structure is supported by his original drawing and has filed an oath under the provisions of Rule 67 35 U.S.C.A.Appendix, in order to support his contention and has also amended the specification to include this subject matter. His contention is that

...