In re Prinzler

• Decision Date: 06 June 1938
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 3966.
• Citation: 97 F.2d 102
• Parties: In re PRINZLER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

97 F.2d 102 (1938)

In re PRINZLER.

Patent Appeal No. 3966.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

June 6, 1938.

Arthur M. Hood, William Perry Hahn, and Harold B. Hood, all of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.

R. F. Whitehead, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.

Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, and JACKSON, Associate Judges.

LENROOT, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of appellant's application for a patent. The examiner also rejected claims 3, 9, and 10 of the application, but upon appeal the Board of Appeals reversed his decision as to said last-named claims, and they stand allowed.

Before us appellant's counsel has moved to dismiss the appeal as to claim 2, which motion will be granted, leaving claims 1, 4, and 5 before us for consideration. They read as follows:

"1. In a panic lock, a main die-forged casing comprising a top plate, integral depending side walls and laterally separated ears backed by a heavy connecting fillet integral with the ears and top plate, and an operating lever pivoted between the ears with a manually engageable portion and an inner arm lying between the ears and projecting into the casing and having a throw-limiting portion of substantial extent lengthwise of said inner arm engageable with an exposed portion of said fillet of substantial extent outwardly beyond the plane of said top-plate.

"4. In a panic lock, a die-forged metal casing comprising a top plate, depending side walls, and an annular shaft pocket in its top plate, two bolt actuators slidably mounted in the casing, a rocker arm connecting said actuators for opposite movement, a retaining plate overlying said actuators and rocker arm and a cam shaft journalled in said retaining plate with one end journalled in the top plate pocket and the other end formed for knob operation; said cam shaft having oppositely arranged arms each having a one-way engagement with one of the bolt actuators.

"5. In a panic lock, a die-forged bolt actuator having an integral pin by which it may be actuated, and also having spring pocket completely open along one side and at one end."

The references cited with respect to the claims before us are: Weibezahl et al. (Ger.), 27,884, July 8, 1884; Voight, 938,526, November 2, 1909; Voight, 1,069,075, July 29, 1913; Voight, 1,345,041, June 29 1920; Bolles 1,646,990, October 25, 1927.

Appellant's alleged invention is concisely described in the decision of the Board of Appeals as follows:

"The invention relates to a panic lock which is employed on doors in public places such as theaters. It comprises a casing, oppositely slidable bolt actuators in the casing, and a centrally pivoted rocker arm connecting the actuators. Springs are provided for normally moving the actuators outwardly to lock the bolts. The bolt actuators are moved in the opposite direction by means of a manually operable lever pivoted in ears on the outer side of the front plate of the casing. The lever is provided with an inner arm projecting into the casing and engaging one of the connected bolt actuators. A cam shaft also projects through the back plate of the casing and is provided with arms for operating the bolt actuators when the shaft is rotated. The bolt actuators can thus be actuated by the cam shaft from the outside of the door. A key operated lock is provided for locking this cam shaft at will."

Each of the references relates to door locks, and all except the German patent specifically relate to panic locks.

We do not find it necessary to describe the references in detail for it is admitted by the Patent Office tribunals that the specific elements relied upon by appellant for patentability are not disclosed therein, but the holdings of those tribunals were that such elements do not lend patentability to the claims.

We will therefore consider such elements of the claims which appellant contends render the claims patentable over the references.

In claim 1 these elements are, as stated in appellant's brief, as follows:

"1. The main casing must be die-forged,

"2. The laterally separated ears must be connected by a heavy fillet which is integral with the ears and top plate; and,

"3. The inner arm of the operating lever must have a throw limiting portion of substantial extent lengthwise of said arm, which portion is engageable with an exposed portion of the fillet, of substantial extent outwardly beyond...