Thompson v. Dicke

• Decision Date: 26 February 1940
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 4269.
• Citation: 110 F.2d 98,27 CCPA 931
• Parties: THOMPSON v. DICKE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

27 CCPA 931, 110 F.2d 98 (1940)

THOMPSON v. DICKE.

Patent Appeal No. 4269.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

February 26, 1940.

Bartlett, Eyre, Scott & Keel, of New York City (Richard Eyre, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Oscar H. Dicke pro se (I. Richard Paris, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.

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

BLAND, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal by the junior party Thompson, from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Examiner of Interferences in awarding priority of invention of the six counts of the issue to the senior party Dicke. Dicke's application, which was filed April 2, 1930, is involved with a patent to Thompson, No. 2,001,439, issued May 14, 1935, on an application filed March 17, 1933. Dicke copied the claims from the Thompson patent for the purpose of interference.

Counts 1 and 2 are illustrative of the subject matter involved and follow:

"1. A single phase synchronous motor having a rotor and a field structure with two pole faces, each pole face comprising a shaded section having a plurality of teeth thereon and an unshaded section likewise having a plurality of teeth thereon, the teeth of the shaded section of each pole face being advanced relatively to the teeth on the unshaded section of that pole face.

"2. A motor according to count 1 wherein the teeth of the shaded section of each pole face are advanced relatively to the teeth of the unshaded section through an angle between one-fourth and one-half of the toothpitch."

While the involved invention is tersely and aptly stated in the counts, we think it is important to set out somewhat in detail certain features of each of the applications which were filed by the respective parties.

The invention of the counts is directed to an improvement in synchronous alternating current motors. The rotors of synchronous motors operate in step with the alternating current supplied to the motors. Current is supplied to a field coil, producing an alternating magnetic flux in the core and pole faces associated with the coil. The flux in the pole faces induces flux of opposite polarity in the rotor, which, as the rotor revolves, produces a torque tending to keep the rotor in motion. In some of the motors a section of the pole face is shaded and another section of the pole face is unshaded. Such a motor was old in the art when the parties hereto entered the field.

The specification of Thompson, the junior party, in great detail describes his invention which is an improvement on the old style synchronous motor, and such improvement is defined by the counts involved. He conceived the notion that if a section of the pole face was shaded and the other section unshaded (shading of pole sections being a usual expedient in the construction of certain types of motors), and the teeth of the shaded section advanced with respect to the position of the teeth of the unshaded section, many of the difficulties encountered with the old synchronous motor would be overcome. It is needless to recount these advantages since they are conceded here. By the "shaded portion" of the pole face is meant placing a "shading band," which is a copper ring closed upon itself, around one portion of each pole face, which has a definite and admitted effect on the action of the rotor. His patent is entirely devoted to this improvement of a synchronous motor.

Dicke's application is for a "Time Indicating System." His specification and drawings are chiefly devoted to a clockwork mechanism operating by a spring which is auxiliary to and in aid of a synchronous motor in keeping the mechanism operating when the current goes off or lags owing to heavy load hours, etc. In figure 1 of his drawings he discloses with considerable detail the clockwork mechanism to which is attached a synchronous motor, and the synchronous motor in figure 1 is shown in diagrammatic form. It clearly shows, however, the shaded and unshaded sections of the bifurcated poles as well as the coil by which the magnetic flux is generated.

As a separate embodiment of his invention he also discloses in figure 2 of his drawings substantially the same clockwork mechanism as is shown in figure 1, which mechanism is operated by a synchronous motor in which there is no shading. The clockwork mechanism of the second embodiment may be wound by a motor. There was no claim in his application, until the claims at bar were copied, for a mechanism which specifically called for a synchronous motor which responded to the counts at bar. Dicke's specification states: "Although the synchronous motor M1 shown in Fig. 2 may be exactly the same as the motor M, it is preferably of slightly modified construction. As shown the motor M1 comprises a toothed rotor having either pointed or dull teeth, and a stator having projecting poles each having one or more teeth spaced to cooperate with the rotor teeth simultaneously." Italics ours

The Primary Examiner, in passing ex parte on the allowance of the claims (which are the counts involved) in Dicke's application, held in an elaborate opinion that figure 1 of Dicke's drawing showed everything the claims called for except that there was no structure there disclosed which would respond to the language of the claims requiring that the teeth of the shaded section of each pole face be advanced in a certain relation to the teeth of the unshaded section of that pole face. In order that what we may say and what we may quote from the decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office may be more readily understood, we think it proper to here insert the drawings of the application of Dicke as well as a photostatic enlargement of a part of figure 1 thereof. The latter was submitted to the Patent Office tribunals and was considered by them.

Dicke appealed from the decision of the Primary Examiner in denying him the claims and the Board of Appeals reversed the decision of the examiner and held that said figure 1, together with certain language hereinafter quoted, found in the specification of Dicke, warranted the conclusion that he had sufficiently disclosed in his application all the elements of the claims.

An interference was subsequently declared and upon order to show cause why judgment on the record should not be entered against Thompson, the junior party (he having alleged no date prior to the filing date of Dicke, the senior party), Thompson moved to dissolve the interference on the ground of no disclosure by Dicke responding to the terms of the counts. Notwithstanding the decision of the board reversing the decision of the examiner as to Dicke's disclosure, the examiner, by reason of new matter not called to the attention of the board and additional arguments presented by Thompson, again held (in passing on the motion to dissolve) that Dicke's disclosure would not support the counts and granted Thompson's motion.

Dicke appealed to the board, the sole issue presented again relating to Dicke's disclosure. The board, notwithstanding the additional reasons assigned by the examiner, again held that Dicke had fully disclosed the elements of the counts and reversed the decision of the examiner.

The Examiner of Interferences then entered judgment on the record, awarding priority to Dicke, and Thompson appealed from his decision so doing to the board.

In the ex parte prosecution of the claims before the examiner, the party Dicke submitted his affidavit as well as that of one Joseph Holt, who was a draftsman and who made the drawings accompanying Dicke's application. The affidavit of Dicke stated, among other things, that the drawing, over which there has been so much controversy, was made by Holt and that Holt asked him for more definite information as to the tooth spacing in figure 1. He stated that he told Holt that the angular spacing of teeth "in the rotor, in the unshaded section of the poles, and in the shaded section of the poles was to be the same, but that the teeth in the shaded section were to lead, in the direction of rotation of the motor (clockwise), the teeth of the unshaded pole a fraction of a tooth, and that if the flux lag in the shaded pole were exactly 90 electrical degrees this extent of lead or advance would be exactly one-half of a tooth, and that since the flux lag due to the shading ring 29 is a little less than 90 electrical degrees this extent of lead of the teeth on the shaded pole should be proportionately less, and Mr. Holt was then instructed to show the teeth in the shaded pole portions lead and unshaded tooth pitch locations (if continued) by a little less, say one to two actual degrees, than one-half tooth spacing. That affiant remembers checking the Bristol Board drawings when completed and was convinced that these instructions had been carried out." He also submitted with the affidavit a photostat, referred to as Exhibit 1, alleged to be an exact and enlarged reproduction of a part of said figure 1, which enlarged drawing accompanys this opinion. In said affidavit he attempts to show that the construction and location of the teeth and existence of the shading coil, as shown in the exhibit, will cause the flux passing through the large poles to lag behind the flux of the small poles "and thereby produce alternate attraction on the teeth of the rotor so that four distinctive pulls per cycle are produced on the rotor."

On the question of accidental disclosure, Holt's affidavit substantially corroborated that of Dicke and in addition said: "The affiant intended to draw the motor M so that the teeth in the shaded section of each pole lead the teeth in the unshaded section of such pole by a little less than one-half and considerably more than one-fourth tooth pitch, and that this was difficult, to do accurately in view of the small scale drawing that was made, and the fact that the enlargement photostat...