*1 Judge, WORLEY, Chief Before MARTIN, SMITH, RICH, JACK- Judges. (retired), Associate SON Judge. SMITH, appeal from the decision of the OfficeBoard which af- Primary rejection firmed the Examiner’s through 22 of the Alexander Wright application, 256,- serial M. November filed “Vortex Pumps.” No claims have been allowed. The claims intended cover system liquid fuel which consists essentially speed drive a driven *2 with the and a re- connected examiner and the board also shaft driving by rotary-type following patents, ferred did shaft driven a to the engine (referred rejection as a not base the thereon: “prime responsive mover”) and a control 2,287,021 Buck discharge June pressures for to the 2,400,306 May 14, Hobbs varying speed shaft of the driven speed call the variable The claims drive. type pump 2,400,307 for fuel a vortex as the Patent et al. No. to Hobbs discloses a variable for an drive by appellant It was admitted engine supercharger, pri- a and shows each element mary compressor, air an en- driven system separately old. It gine, through connected, pair which is a sep- appellant’s position while the couplings, auxiliary of fluid air to an system old, the arate elements of the compressor, discharge pressure is. whose by called resultant combination for substantially maintained valves, constant feeding provides fuel claims is new and system responsive which is capable which asserts manual the- movement of a and to throttle operating efficiently minimum at both discharge pressure auxiliary air engine speeds provide and maximum compressor. pres- fuel for the at a vary and which sure a volumetric rate 2,599,680 Weeks disclos- engine. generally speed of the with the liquid distributing system having es a Claim all of the other obtaining predetermined means for dependent, combi- claims are recites this liquid through plurality division of flow nation as follows: passages, of gear primary flow and shows a having system pump, “16. In a engine, fuel driven rotary-type prime supplies liquid, through conduit, mover a main means, mover, prime conduits, driven said three branch in each of which supplying thereto, “positive liquid liquid-displacing device,” fuel said comprising vortex-type pump, gear rotary similar in structure to a prime mover, pump meter, said and driven is located. These three rotary straight, impeller flat, liquid displacing geared devices are to- gether blades, radial ranged output constructed and ar- and driven drive generate pumped coupling. shaft of a fluid The fluid in. liquid fuel vortex currents which move the is controlled a valve- right angles responsive pressure drop- of rotation impeller; means, liquid displacing of said connect- one across first de- impeller mover, prime said to said vices. whereby impeller by, said and It is Primary- of both the selected, in a ratio with that, Appeals Examiner and the Board of mover; prime ap- second means for prior patents while the do not disclose plying the of said vortex currents the vortex element called for in impeller; to assist and through 22, of' substitution means, operatively third associated with such a in the com- said controlling and said first is; shown in binations discharge pressure patentable not a invention. rate of said in accordance with Appellant asserts claims 16- selected patentable cover a novel characteristic desired.” individually old elements.. upon by The references relied the ex- and the Board of aminer in re- opinion is this difference of which- jecting the claims are: presents e., issue i. does. 2,400,307 May 14, dependent Hobbs al. et claim 16 and its claims define- 2,599,680 patentable Weeks June a novel combination ? questions presents duce a new and Col- useful result.” The issue gate-Palmolive Company reasona v. Carter law is both law fact. Products, Cir., 1956, bly 230 F.2d clear: aggregation (1) The mere *3 elements number or of old “Though (4) may have perform which, aggregation, believed that each the elements produce func- or no new or different old, patented device operation hereto- tion or does follow the combination not them, performed produced
fore or unpatentable. not need We ” patentable is invention.’ Great not upon novel elaborate rule Super- v. Atlantic & Pacific Co. Tea so elements which old Corp., 1940, Equipment 340 market cooperate with each other 130, 147, 151, 127, 95 U.S. 71 S.Ct. produce result or a new and useful L.Ed. 162. efficiency, substantial is increase composi- patentable. Lewyt Corp. (2) “A v. combination is See Health-Mor, Inc., Cir., elements, F.2d 181 tion of some of which new, or denied 340 be old and all old certiorari U.S. others or 605; however, is, Blaw- combina- S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. new. Co., Cir., invention, Knox Co. I. D. Lain that is the and is v. Manufacturing contemplation much a of law F.2d 373.” Weller unit single Company Products, noncomposite Inc., as a instru- Wen Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 1125-1126. ment.” RCL (3) question quite The facts here of record “The real as to the meager. validity The patent examiner has cited showing showing anticipation a vortex For a or of use but of alleged cooperation question The of the claimed invention. is whether produce product elements a new and is a mere unobvious result, dependent upon graph aggregation, we are in which old elements drawings accomplish independently what (which reproduced prior art, here did in or whether there the de- scription graph specifica- a true in which old pro- have been combined to tion. charge pressure rate) (and above describes the charac- showing figure diagram speed- teristic, as “a as indicated the curve rate) Fig. 3, pressure (and required character- o-a-c-d in my specifi- improved pump.” pump.” a fuel boost istic operation of
cation further describes studying In the above diagram pump with reference to the specification, appellant, in we note that 3 as follows: quoted portion specifica- the above of his tion, refers to the d-c-o.” “curve We a vortex such as dis- “When have been unable to how such understand my parent copending appli- closed in supports appellant’s position. a curve hereinabove, is driven cation and view of in the same reference directly which the *4 “point appellant’s sentence to the e” and supplies fuel, pressure pump arid brief, appellant we have assumed that generally discharge increase rate of must have intended to refer to curve impeller speed, square of the as d-e-o, Fig. shown in 3 dotted line on by the curve o-a-b as indicated graph. diagram Hence, if of give designed argues pump Appellant graph were to such shows that this say (10 per 2,400 rpm its cent of at ac- that cording means constructed 24,000 speed gives of maximum selected to re- the claimed invention discharge pressure by rpm) a selected sults which are not the use achieved say pounds per square by type directly inch 175 of aof vortex driven a, by point (psi), speed as indicated without corresponding per 17.5 cent of its drive and control The Patent Office unit. discharge pres- disputed point. selected maximum has not this 1,000 24,000 rpm, psi then of sure Our this case would consideration of develop its maxi- would specification have been facilitated had the discharge pressure of mum selected clearly how claimed more indicated impeller speed psi, when its 1.000 provides pump construction only per se- about 25 cent its operating shown characteristics speed, maximum as indicated lected graph. The curve o-a-c-d time, point the same b. At point we had this have on doubts impeller of at- when the appellant’s have position resolved in favor been speed maximum its selected tained ques- the examiner has not since discharge pressure rpm, its 24.000 accuracy graph of the either tioned 17,500 psi, would increase to about appellant’s as nor operating conclusions times its selected or one hundred claimed of the characteristics speed per cent value. directly “Conversely, any However, if the said neither nor this designed give gives any driven us in the record evidence other 1,000 pressure psi comparison direct between the for a basis per prior cent of selected maximum its the combina- art and devices of (24,000 rpm), then dis- its no Since tion claimed charge pressure type pump would decrease with is shown in vortex- speed, record, curve to infer we are left references d-c-o, operat- pumps prior have the so that the that no psi, im- fall when the would peller characteristics per cent of combination. (as maximum indicat- selected Primary Examiner e). by point ed may Board of be sum- patents foregoing, prior follows: “In view it marized single stage “pumps” a fluid clear show according de- as described hereinabove is and controlled conditions; giving speed-dis- incapable operating sired Where the substitu- do not show more no cover claims the claimed combination and there is known tion of challenge patents; posi- evidence before us to in such pumps shown applicant, opin- from unexpected result tion taken an it is our newno or there per- applicant ion that an substitution; should not be denied all of this specula- have his the basis factual functions the same form either therefore, appellant’s past; elements, which, Office tribunals. We base this on cover lacking proposition applicant novel, is an must be as- though be sumed know and understand nature patentability. truth of and specification. the statements in his made Kidde Corporation Walter B. G. Judge Inc., Cir., Co., F.2d & When we turn to the here a similar disposing Hand in Learned we find that asserts infringe- an advanced there problems serious operation of vor- language we action, used ment pumps tex systems in aircraft fuel applicable here: think is satisfactorily invention has solved. up machines are made “All any teaching *5 doWe not find prior in the elements; rods, pawls, pit- same specific of art the combination claimed. mans, journals, gears, cams, toggles, agree We with the examiner and the acting like, their Appeals Board of prior the art always always they do and must. general the shows same * * * capa- But the elements elements as that covered in the claims infinity permutations, an of ble of e., us: before i. group and the selection of proves which prime rotary-type A. a mover, given need serviceable to a pumping B. high may require degree orig- means to be driven of the prime inality. mover and to fuel It is that of selection to the act mover, prime invention; the and it must beyond capacity be of common- C. drive pump means between the and imagination.” place prime mover, and and cooperating Patent Office tri- D. means with the drive deciding handicapped vary bunals are in a case means to the ratio of the of present incomplete such one prime of nature the record before them. The mover. tests announced the courts to deter- It is that the through patentability mine of combinations re- in combination covered claims 16 quire an evaluation of numerous factual also includes the structural elements on pre- matters which no evidence is here give the vortex of the results sented. We have in serving record the self- graph. We do not appellant declarations of as the find these elements vortex in only important evidence on such issues as the combinations of shown in the problem the continued existence aof in patents prior of record. We think that problem and art the solution of that ap invention this case in resides in by the claimed combination individual- particular pellant’s selection elements ly Likewise, only old elements. we have making up the new combination covered self-serving appellant declarations through opin 22. It is in our that his selection and combination ele- that the cited ion ments, appraised light when in not show examiner do combination by it, pro- new results said to be achieved covered duces a result which is more the ex- pected remains for There consideration the sum of the individual functions of elements, question of whether not this sepa- selection old when considered rately. combination of old elements was ob- and Board of The decision was made invention the time vious at ordinary in this reversed. person skills ato claimed The combination Reversed. speed drive pump, variable vortex actuated control WORLEY, J., participate C. did not give appears pressure of the because of illness. us, un- and, the record new e., by appellant, i. result asserted MARTIN, J., participate did pumping means in which decision. feed rate volumetric according to liquid fuel is controlled RICH, Judge (concurring). discharge pres- preselected I want to mention certain factors meet required to characteristics sure operating agree this case which influence me to engine. requirements of the Judge with the conclusion reached Appellant’s indicates that opinion. SMITH’S this result type not achieved only appeal speci- Not do the claims on engine' pump directly driven at fy vortex-type part showing speeds. There they call the devices would be achieved specific type of vortex described unless are modified as containing what taught by appellant. The results claim refers to as “second com- to his claimed attributes applying cur- suggest us that bination impeller.” assist rents of the vari- selection gives The record no information *6 us to a theretofore un- ous elements solve place kind of about in the art problem not obvi- in this was solved pump specified Ap- vortex in the claim. having ordinary skills in to one ous “high parently efficiency is the vortex it this (such my as that disclosed in co- Since, on the record before the com- parent pending application)” proper- appears to have bination appli- refers, present separate from and in addi- ties which being a cation stated to be continuation properties of the elements tion to the 254,022, part application in serial No. separately, hold taken through we that claims might guess filed October One 1951. a new combination cover applicant has invented a new vortex that pump individually This combina- old elements. containing means” of “second prior references not shown appli- in claim is described that the claimed We believe record. us before as a turbine rotor cation at the time combination not by energy is actuated from the vor- appellant’s invention to one right (those moving currents tex angles ordinary skills in this art. im- of rotation of the pump). peller This rotor Pursuant to motion filed the So- any Office,copies mounted on shaft and for the Patent licitor patents Buck, 2,287,021, it absorbs thus assists No. impeller. 2,400,306, of vortex Hobbs, included the kind have been parent ap- appears be disclosed in the decision as to the the record and the in taxing plication claimed there- but whether it is such inclusion has of costs for way knowing. any pat- In postponed have no time. The in we until this been case, claimed here in combination question it is were discussed ents appeal drive and means for answer to to the with examiner’s varying properly drive in accord- made board therefore According- pump dis- variations in the part with of the instant record. ance including charge pressure. not do ly, The references costs them incident Though against the combination. taxed show will be question pump, pat- kind comes down shows a Hobbs al. et entability supercharger, in compressor appel- air the combination pump, claims, and lant’s a fluid combination defined pressure responsive this with the other control elements in the claimed suggest applica- reference does not combination. I think the references re- bility pump of suggesting of the control to a lied on fall far short of patentable. kind. and therefore that it is No reference nor shows a vortex appellant’s parent application any way rejec- us or in relied on high tion. well be that efficiency pump in combination system produces with the claimed control way. unobvious results in an unobvious simplifying appellant’s combination point where 46 CCPA. setting merely pump, examiner Warren W. FITZGERALD up for the sake nonexistent situation
argument. Appellant insisted that et ARBIB al. single element, called claim pump, Appeal No. 6450. forth four different ele- but set g, F, G, combination, ments called United States Court of Customs said: I. The board Appeals. and Patent “We have considered the examin- July respect position in er’s agree G, F, him that elements g, and I of reality merely
are in
means of the references far claimed is con- the combination *7 (My emphasis.)”
cerned. wrongly
This was since it assumes error of the claims read element any pump, which is not the case. specifies Claim * * * vortex-type * *
* rotary impeller flat, straight, blades, radial arranged gen- constructed pumped liquid erate in the fuel vor- right
tex which move currents angles rotation * ** of said second applying currents to assist driv- impeller. of this limits the All element in agree I claim. the board that G, F, g, “merely I
elements pump means,” and are means and all the
means described the references. it So