In re Lange, Appeal No. 80-568.
Citation | 644 F.2d 856 |
Decision Date | 12 March 1981 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 80-568. |
Parties | In re Emil LANGE. |
Court | United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
Donald D. Evenson, Paul M. Craig, Jr., Davis S. Safran, Washington, D. C., for appellant; Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., Sol., Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Appeals ("board") which affirmed the examiner's rejections of claims 28, 31, and 42 on Cobine et al.1 ("Cobine") under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 29, 30, and 32-34 on Cobine, claims 35-41 on Cobine in view of Farrer et al.2 ("Farrer"), and claims 28-42 on appellant's German Auslegeschrift No. 1,285,594 ("`594"), published December 19, 1968, in view of appellant's British patent No. 1,205,646 ("`646"), published September 16, 1970. Appellant's application serial No. 254,537 was filed May 18, 1972, for "Electric Circuit Breaker With Means for Quenching Electric Arcs," as a continuation-in-part of application serial No. 719,763 ("parent"), filed April 8, 1968, which is a continuation of application serial No. 429,194 ("grandparent"), filed January 18, 1965. We reverse the board's decision affirming the rejections of claims 28, 31, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 28-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the '594 and '646 references. We affirm the board's decision approving the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 29, 30, and 32-34 on Cobine and claims 35-41 on Cobine in view of Farrer.
The invention relates to a circuit breaker which quenches an electric arc produced between electrodes by use of an electronegative gas, such as sulphur hexafluoride ("SF6"), selenium hexafluorideride ("SeF6"), trifluoromethylsulphur pentafluoride ("CF3 SF5"), or sulphur pentafluoride ("SF5") which is released from electrodes consisting of metallic and nonmetallic substances by the heat of the arc. The metallic substances include metals having strong cohesive forces such as tungsten and molybdenum. The nonmetallic substances are those which generate the desired electronegative gas when heated by an arc, such as an adduct of polytetrafluoride, possibly together with sulphur. Fluorine, sulphur or selenium is admixed with the nonmetallic substances. Figure 1 is illustrative:
The apparatus includes an arc quenching chamber 1, a fixed contact 2 electrically connected to a tubular electrode 7, a movable switch pin 3 having a contact tip 8 which operates as an electrode, spaces 4 and 5, partition 6, ring electrode 9, and electrically conductive connection piece 10. The electrodes 7, 8, and 9 are formed of the metallic and nonmetallic substances by melting, casting, sintering, decomposing, or superimposing the substances.
In order to break the circuit, the switch pin 3 is withdrawn from fixed contact 2; as this occurs, an arc is struck between electrodes 7 and 8. The heat from the arc causes electronegative gas to be emitted in the space 4 from the electrode surfaces. This gas aids in quenching the arc by forming negative ions having a great electron affinity. As the pin 3 continues to be withdrawn, tip 8 passes through the ring electrode 9 so that the arc burns between the electrode 7, the ring electrode 9, and the tip 8. The electronegative gas emitted from tip 8 and electrodes 7 and 9 increases the gas pressure in space 4. As the tip 8 leaves space 4 and enters space 5, the gas contained in space 4 rushes into space 5 through the ring electrode 9 exposing the arc to the gas.
Appellant's application stresses the importance of the location of the metallic and nonmetallic substances in the electrodes rather than in the walls of the arc quenching chamber.
The following claims are exemplary:
The references are of two types: those applied against the claims and those cited to establish the level of ordinary skill or knowledge in the art. Cobine is the most pertinent reference applied against the claims and discloses a circuit interrupter having chamber walls which are coated and electrode surfaces which are impregnated with a silicofluoride material which releases silicon tetrafluoride gas ("SiF4") in response to the arc heat. The electrodes are so impregnated that when the gas is released it will sweep through the path of the arc. Because SiF4 has an ultimate dielectric strength of the same order of magnitude as air, Cobine suggests that SF6 could be used to increase the dielectric strength of the gas in the chamber. Farrer discloses specific structure of circuit interrupters which also emit arc-extinguishing gas from the walls of an arc-confining chamber in response to arc heat. The '594 reference is substantially similar to the Lange grandparent application and formed the basis for the grandparent's claim to foreign priority. The '646 reference discloses similar electrodes and chamber structure with additional details concerning manufacture of the electrode chamber.3
Three additional references have been made of record, and both the PTO and appellant appear to agree that they indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. The Mandelcorn et al. patent4 ("Mandelcorn") states that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.
...matter added to a C-I-P application was inherently disclosed in an original patent application. See, e.g., In re Lange, 644 F.2d 856, 864, 209 USPQ 288, 295 (C.C.P.A.1981); In re Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245, 1248-50, 195 USPQ 434, 437-38 (C.C.P.A.1977). Different standards for estoppel apply, h......
-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...265. 42. The disclosure in question should be read in light of the knowledge possessed by persons skilled in the art. See In re Lange, 644 F.2d 856, 863 (CCPA 1981); Application of Eickmeyer, 602 F.2d 974, (CCPA 1979); Application of Smythe, supra, 480 F.2d at 1384; In re Lukach, supra, 442......
-
BWB Controls, Inc. v. US Industries, Inc.
...not considered new matter so as to bar the added matter from being entitled to the earlier filing date of the parent patent. In re Lange, 644 F.2d 856 (C.C.P.A.1981). 16. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), if an invention was sold or in use for more than one year prior to the filing of a patent appl......
-
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) v. Montedison, S.p.A.
...would have been placed on a description of an invention in an application at the time of the filing of the application. In re Lange, 644 F.2d 856, 863 (C.C.P.A.1981); In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605 Standard argues, further, that the district court should not have accepted the melting point,......