Sovish, In re
| Decision Date | 26 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-781,85-781 |
| Citation | 226 USPQ 771,769 F.2d 738 |
| Parties | In re Richard C. SOVISH, Marc F. Moisson, and Frank K.A. Selleslags. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
James W. Geriak, Lyon & Lyon, of Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellants. With him on brief were Roy L. Anderson and William E. Mouzavires, Lyon & Lyon, Washington, D.C.
Fred W. Sherling, Associate Solicitor, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued, for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C.
Before RICH, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NIES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10, 15-17, 19, 21-23, and 31-34 of application serial No. 79,335, filed September 22, 1979, for "Heat Recoverable Article," by Richard C. Sovish, Marc F.L. Moisson and Frank K.A. Selleslags (Sovish). Some claims (24-30) have been allowed. Others, to a non-elected invention, were withdrawn. We affirm.
In numerous wiring systems such as electrical supply, telephone, cable TV, and the like, junctions or outlet boxes are used, into and out of which wires or cables pass. Such boxes may be made at least in part of heat-recoverable material or have aperture members made thereof, their characteristic being that when heated they shrink, return, or "recover" to a smaller size and thereby are able to close upon a cable or the like to form a hermetic seal. The invention relates to the temporary or permanent plugging of such aperture members and involves a novel plug in the form of a cylindrical hollow body (first part) closed at one end by a cap (second part). This plug may be positioned in an aperture member or conduit to close it until such time as it is desired to insert a cable or the like therethrough, the aperture member then being shrunk around the plug by heating. When the cable is to be inserted, the cap or "second part" is first knocked off, the cable passed through the "first part" or hollow body, and the aperture member further or again heated. This will cause the tubular part of the plug to be forced out, extruded, or "milked out" as the application says (presumably by analogy to milking a cow), due to its tapered shape. The aperture member will then shrink tightly upon and seal the cable. The following figures from the drawings will give an understanding of the invention's structure.
Fig. 4 illustrates an aperture member 4a which is an outlet or inlet portion of a junction box or the like (not shown). Before use it has a diameter § and upon heating can shrink or "recover" to a diameter t.
Fig. 3 shows a complete plug having a tubular body 3, cylindrical on the inside and tapered on the outside as shown at 4, the thinnest end being integrally joined with end-cap 5 (second part) having a diameter m. Where the cap and body join, the plug is weakened by a circumferential groove 6.
Fig. 5 shows the plug in the aperture member which has been partially preshrunk into close contact with the outer tapered surface 4 of the plug, securing it in place.
Exploded view 6 shows the cap 5 severed from the body 3, a cable 7 extending through aperture member 4a, which is now shrunk closely around the cable, the tubular body 3 of the plug having been removed from member 4a. The plug being made of relatively fragile material, the body 3 may be removed from the cable 7 by breaking it up.
The appealed claims define the invention as an article including the heat-recoverable conduit and the plug. Claim 1 is illustrative of the independent claims on appeal, 1, 21, 31, and 33:
1. An article having a heat-recoverable conduit therein, said conduit being provided with a plug or cap member comprising:
(a) a first hollow part which is coaxial with the conduit and in contact with a wall thereof, and
(b) a second part which blocks the conduit, the second part being so attached to or so in engagement with the first part that it can at least partially be detached or disengaged so as to leave the conduit open with the first hollow part still in position in contact with the conduit but removable or deformable so that recovery [of the conduit] can be effected. [Emphasis and bracketed insert ours.]
The appealed claims are all rejected on the same legal ground, "under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Weagant in view of Esher." These references are:
Weagant 3,395,382 July 30, 1968
Reproduced below is a portion of Esher's Fig. 1, showing how his plug is used in an electrical wiring junction box 10, Fig. 2
showing a complete plug, and exploded view, Fig. 4, showing the plug with its cap 19 removed and its bottom 21 knocked out, severed from the tubular body 14 along the line of circular scoring 22. The plug is disclosed as used in metal conduits 11 and is made of insulating plastic material. Its main purpose is to close the conduits during building construction to keep plaster, concrete, dirt, etc., out of the conduits. Use of the top cap 19 is optional; it forms a sealed chamber in the plug in which conduit information can be left on a slip of paper 24, as seen at the left side of Fig. 1. The bottom 22 can be broken out by a blow as shown at 27 because of score line 22. Taper 15 facilitates insertion in a conduit. No heat-recoverable or heat-shrinkable parts are disclosed. There is no tight fit between wiring 25 and the plug. The plug may be left in the conduit as an insulating collar.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Weagant, in relevant part, discloses a hermetically sealed electrical junction box A adapted to receive a number of insulated conductors or cables 10,10' through a cap 14 resembling an automobile engine distributor cap. The openings into the cap are in the form of sleeves 22 and are made of heat-shrinkable material. Until used, they are closed with simple solid plugs 26 like corks in wine bottles, as shown in part of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, below. We quote below the totality of the disclosure in this reference pertaining to the plugs.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
In the general discussion, the specification says:
Another feature and advantage of this invention is the provision of a connector assembly as described above with removable plugs positioned within certain of the tubular legs so that additional conductors can be added and hermetically sealed in the assembly from time to time as desired.
In the detailed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Genzyme Corp. v. Atrium Medical Corp.
...what is "sought to be patented" and that is, therefore, the sole object of the court's concern in determining obviousness. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738 (Fed.Cir.1985). Where there is a new combination or arrangement of mechanical components, a conclusion of obviousness requires that there be ......
-
Cragg v. Martin
...U.S.P.Q. 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 U.S.P.Q. 545, 549 (CCPA 1969), by arguing that "[b]oth Bozek and Sovish required a disclosure in the prior references to render the claims obvious."). It appears that Cragg completely misses the point for which we ......
-
GEN. AMER. TRANSP. v. CRYO-TRANS
...familiar with all that the relevant art discloses and reasonably suggests, would find the claimed invention obvious. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir.1985). 12. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art is an individual having a college degree or equivalent experience in ......
-
Adidas AG v. Patent of Lyden
...claims. That is what is presently "sought to be patented" and is, therefore, the sole object of our present consideration. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For this reason, we give no weight, either with respect to anticipation or with respect to obviousness, to arguments d......
-
Isn't It Obvious? How Klein's Definition of Analogous Prior Art Conflicts with the Supreme Court's Vision for Obviousness
...not, i.e. , whether the art is ‘too remote to be treated as prior art.’” (alterations in original) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103; In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). 1386 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 98:1377 In fact, the Graham Court articulated the requirement of analogousness as a comp......