*1 such toluene.” limita- as benzene or character of the reactants the con- liquid tion of claims 2 be trol and 3 that of that reaction the use dilu- oil Schlesinger exam- mineral was considered ents. Since proc- I teaches art”, utilizing iner “to be especially skill of the within the ess reactants, identical it obvious, in view would of Muekenfuss. be opinion, in our to also diluents control that reaction. It Appellant pre ‘‘The his brief states Schlesinger true that II discloses dil- cise maintenance lies relatively uents of boiling point, low dispersion hydride sodium fine such as However, benzene or toluene.3 high in mineral oil or similar inert boil it is noted that the reaction of ing liquid.” Schlesin- He contends the use ger II is carried out 90°C, at about liquid process as such a in the instant “Example IV,” Schlesinger spe- while basing argument I unobvious', cifically requires temperature allegation “between “position the Pat 200° and preparation 275°C” for the utterly history ent Office overlooks borohydride. If one were to control and the relevant facts” as well Schlesinger I exothermic record, citing reaction in affidavits of taught by Schlesinger II, manner al., McKenna et 203 F.2d liquid higher evident that an inert alleges rejec further 717. He boiling point necessary. hindsight arising be In our is based opinion, high boiling the use of a inert disclosure and that the refer process Schlesinger diluent in the improperly I were combined. ences would be obvious to one skilled this art submitted for examiner’s teachings Schlesinger in view of the consideration the Mil- affidavit one Dr. II. operation lard which states that the process Schlesinger “frequently The decision is affirmed. allegedly develops” spots hot caused Affirmed. “inadequate dissipation of heat throughout reaction mixture.” The further that in affidavit states
process “ «- * * There been no oc- of an
currence uncontrolled violent type
reaction described for the
‘dry’ process. reason for , throughout the reaction action oil precludes the more even distribution of suspension quick dissipation of satisfactory when carried development is believed to control of this re- out mineral mixture heat of. heat ‘hot due Application of Claus L. SPORCK. United and Patent States Appeal Court of Customs No. 6709. spot’. Another reason better 4,May control when this obtained . is carried out in reaction mineral oil solubility suspension is due to the ” * *
methyl borate mineral oil. thoroughly
haveWe considered all of contentions but unable to alleged. that the erred as ' pointed examiner, out As Schles-
inger clearly II teaches exothermic boiling respective points
3. Tlio examiner stated that are 80.1°C and 110.8°O.
687 argument 9, 1961, October [Oral Mr. Olsson and Mr. Nakamura] WORLEY, Judge,
Before Chief SMITH, RICH, MARTIN, and Associate Judge Judges, and H. WILLIAM KIRKP ATRICK*
SMITH, Judge. appeal is from decision of the Appeals Patent Office af- rejection firmed the examiner’s of claims 1-5, inclusive, appellant’s application 536,086 serial No. for a method form- ing hollow, frusto-conical articles from flat metal stock. The claims were jected being under 35 U.S.C. 103 ob- as following view vious in of the referenc- es:
Kelley 1,901,035 et al. Mar. 1933 19,790 Re. Dec. 436,768 British Oct. typical ap- 1 is claims on
Claim of the peal reads follows: as making method of
“1. The hol- generally conical-shaped low having comprising side working steps: portion tapering cross annular by mounting said blank [section]1 spindle conical-shaped on a portion and while the rotating, axially displac- blank are ing portion annular said ain a roller move conical-shaped the surface portion of the formed any point thereon in a di- taken at generally parallel the ro- rection Synnestvedt Olsson, equal & tational axis of the J. Frederick Pa., corresponding Philadelphia, appellant. Lechner, for thickness of original blank.” Moore, Washington, D. W. Clarence Nakamura, Washington, 1-3 (Joseph claims F. similar C. counsel) present purposes C., for for can be Commissioner considered D. one. Claim recites mak- as Patents. * Judge District word “section” omitted claim Senior States United Pennsylvania, presented applicant, but the des- District ex Eastern place Judge appeals participate all ignated aminer provisions O’Connell, pursuant inserted here of Sec- it should be as is done. 294(d), Title States Code. 28 United cup-shaped surface of the cone wall is defined requires of the roller
cross-section and claim moves in cup-shaped cross- blank with to the outer *3 dle. section. Lindgren reference, and the issue for determination British sole general supra, both under 35 whether the board was correct disclose the method however, holding Appellant, predi- described.
U.S.C. in cates his claimed invention obvious at the unobviousness of was ordinary method skill on the time made one of asserted fact the it was to in methods of such the references are view disclosures unable by spinning form the references. a metal frusto-cone cited tapered with a or non-uniform wall to a relates following principle thickness the of axial forming hollow, a frusto-con- method displacement while he is able to do so. tapered wall from a ical article with appellant’s method, he first rolls or by cup-shaped or the flat tapered cup-shaped otherwise forms a or layers axially displacing or blank and the piece blank from a flat metal. sheet metal with a roller which moves strata of tapered cup-shaped or then blank is rotating spindle. face relative of a spun spindle. on a frusto-conical To Appellant’s spinning method is similar wall, form tapered a frusto-cone with a general spin- to that used in the metal positioned roller is to move Lindgren ning by arts, as shown and along spindle to the patents. A round British metal blank surface, so that it comes closer spindle clamped is first spindle along spindle itas moves sur- shape. a frusto-conical theAs Appellant face. asserts method spindle rotated, and blank the roller displacement results in axial of the metal tapered pushes the metal sides non-parallel blank since the path roller form a frusto- hollow designed is so that the thickness and the is deformed to the cone shape tapered watt, measured in a direction by axial parallel spindle axis, to the is the same operation To ment. understand that tapered as the thickness cwp- necessary starting to visualize the shaped blank, measured in the di- same being composed blank as of an infinite rection at the same radial from distance layers lying number or strata in a axis. plane parallel spindle. axis position states in his during The roller directed brief: spinning operation metal strata change “The over the references axially displaced the blank are relative one, change being ais other, e., they i. to each slide relative to tapered the use of blank and in a compressed each other and are not non-parallel path chos- length. elongated any point Thus at en so thickness of the side spindle, appellant the surface on being formed, any point taken at contends, the thickness of the frusto- parallel in direction to the wall, paral- measured cone in a direction spindle, equal axis of the to the spindle axis, equal lel to the corresponding thickness of original blank, measured tapered blank.” equal in the same at an direction radial whether, The sole issue thus is in us- distance the rotational axis. forming a blank a hollow cross sec- frusto-cone ning utilizing principles parallel tion and a roller method displacement, spindle, surface of axial conical disclosed prior patents, done the inner surface of than would have wall of the hollow been obvious to worker of frusto-cone is defined spindle surface, the' and the outer at the time made, having him in frusto-cone before invention was taughi by appellant’s forming wall. Assertions are made cones the method of problem prevent patent, counsel was British and the swaging spun adapting that as it was faced with the through by appellant forming was solved method a cone with a non-parallel blank and wall. path. These have not assertions aof the use The board held disputed been or the examiner blank with cross section board, nor has been cited reference a roller to the conical which shows the formation a metal *4 extension surface of the is a mere method article taught displacement of the idea of axial tapered judging requires wall. In what the and British references ingenuity, uncommon the standard best therefore, adap- was, and but an obvious ingenuity is what common failed to shape specific tation of the that idea to contrive. Western States Machine Co. desired in finished article and Hepworth Co., Cir., v. S. S. F.2d 2 147 forming steps tapered blank 345, any contrary 347. In the absence of fully from flat stock shown is showing us, in the record before we must Kelley et al. reference. assume that no one had before any pat- predicate not does ascertained, did, as he that a frusto-coni- relating significance on entable tapered cal with wall could be forming tapered flat axially spun by use of stock. a roller forming spindle. surface ref- contention is suggest erences do not how the methods appellant’s prob- Once solution to the as therein disclosed can used for form- be lem of wall frusto-cone cones with wall without disclosed, easy prior is it is see how lying Specifi- disclosure. manipu- can references be modified and cally, Lindgren’s appellant contends that produce type lated to this of cone. The discussion of axial strata change admittedly simple hind- rol- ment where blank is flat and the sight However, seems obvious. the sim- ler moves plicity of new oftentimes inventions spaced and is a distance therefrom at very thing is not obvious before applicable k not sine t2=ti they court, made. are re Os- process forming 921, plack, 932, 195 F.2d 39 a frusto-cone CCPA stat- ed: wall. “We think this case is one determining the issue here we category which, of inventions when required by 35 U.S.C. 103 to do explana- viewed after disclosure and vantage from the of one applicant, simple an seem art as should such have been ob- and then to determine whether field. Yet vious those claimed invention would have been ob negative necessarily does inven- vious to such in at the time the Goodyear patentability. tion or Tire requires vention was made. This us to Co., Ray- & Rubber Inc. v. [et al.] reading view the into art without Co., 275, O-Vac 321 U.S. 64 S.Ct. teachings in 721; DeLancey, 88 L.Ed. In re Murray Peterson, vention. (Patents) 159 F.2d 34 C.C.P.A. F.2d Indeed, may simplicity even be application Neither some Bald- evidence of invention. give nor Corporation the record before us us v. Tini- win-Southwark Testing al.], a factual nature [et ascer Olsen Mach. Co. us Cir., tain faced F.2d 910.” plate the invention a blank variable The fact product, de he states: is not obtain such since made it is seems after question of obvious terminative “If the desired thickness many rule, If this were ness. flange orig- outer less than patents would beneficial the most greater inal material than that but skilled If those down. stricken mantle, produce, conical given working in a arts are mechanical spinning, disk a semi-manufactured cer discover have failed to mantles, shape of two conical improvement, new and useful tain angle other, one below discovery fre first who makes one quently greater the lower mantle made an make than has done upper than mantle.” have improvement which obvious [Emphasis added.] suggested skilled mechanic itself ato patent It is also clear that the British en art, and such contemplate did not use of a grant patent thereon. of a titled Expanded vary blank to thickness of the wall Bradford, U. v. Metal Co. *5 product. patent states: 366, 652, L.Ed. 29 S.Ct. S. “The thickness [cone of the wall] vary solicitor, material will of in answer course de- Lindgren pends point angle formula at each on the assertion applicable [Emphasis inclination.” K added.] is not sin t2=ti an article wall, sub- has We are unable to art find in the relied Lindgren’s upon drawing based a mitted figure by teaching any prior board can formula to show spin- invention that a process. applicable to be made ning process provide could be used to with the we While desired having conical-shaped hollow disclosed formula solicitor Lindgren a do find side. Nor we appellant used could be any teaching in the art of the use of the relation between define a blank of variable thickness ain blank width path distance and spun in to form order article with a of rotation parallel axis to the direction tapered or variable thickness wall. spindle, any of the surface at legal is Obviousness is a conclu conclusion this not think that we do required sion which arewe to draw from obvious- issue of of the determinative appearing in facts the record or of Lindgren which (and British refer- ness. judicial may notice be taken. processes be where Thus ence) discloses any fore we can conclude disclosed parallel path to the is the roller “obvious” is under the con- condi thickness is and the blank specified 103, in tions 35 U.S.C. we Lind- disclosed The formula stant. ascertaining must evaluate facts from which de gren the roller useful is only prior termine what was shown where path one calculation made, art at the time invention was ti, thickness, remains constant. blank Appellant’s knowledge path which non-parallel roller can- ordinary possessed skill the art at Lind- the formula of be found unless not gren Here, time the invention made. was applied times several neither the record nor the facts blank, which of the radial width tapered judicial Lindgren sup we are able to plies take notice shown not necessary sup the factual data British reference. or the port legal conclusion of obviousness figure Lindgren the invention at the time it product was made. shows in unwilling specula We to substitute thick- cone wall constant hindsight appraisal flange tion and of the or outer lower ness greater art for such factual data. For It this than the cone wall. rea think son we there a doubt as did to the is clear that not contem- moving parallel the roller in supporting conclusion not factual basis spindle (the inven- appeals sides second of the board of novel) step appellant one claimed tion would have been obvious equally would seem In to be obvious. fact, circumstances, taper ning. of the to be car- disk is Under these article, ried over into the finished it could in favor doubt resolved should be short, way. Devine, be done F.2d other applicant. I 725; cannot find about- re Altmann unobvious appellant features which the asserts Bureau, 264 F.2d constitute an advance art. over reasons, foregoing For the majority’s supports The record Appeals is re decision of the finding what the did versed. new, utility and its has not been chal- lenged. However, novelty and useful- Judge (dissenting). MARTIN, up do patentability. ness not add I majority disagree because majority with the opinion speaks appel- who that one skilled believe lant’s problem “solution to gener- hollow wanted to manufacture wall frusto-cone.” is true It ta- ally conical-shaped article that in a doubtful case the fact that an axial pered means of may invention solves the art ta- procedure, know that ment sometimes be taken as evidence that pered be used obvious, should only was not but that is where should recognized there evidence of an old and *6 nothing else spindle. I find need which the invention satisfies and patentabil- application which which others have tried without success ity predicated. supply. case, present can be In the existed, such need record does it, appear anyone show nor does it Judge (dissenting). KIRKPATRICK, ever tried or pellant ap- wanted to do what the appellant’s con- I cannot shows, did. So far as the record beyond could what tribution “problem” appellant which the expected aof merely said to have solved was that of Brit- and The skill in the art. accomplishing by simple adaptation fully disclose references ish spinning something methods, known which he set appellant technique used out to do. The farmer who sets out to frusto-conical to make a construct a fence around his ten-acre majority disk. As described fiat opinion, “problem,” that kind he first round metal blank job. completes it solves when he The clamped way fence and farmer which the shape. As the frusto-conical goes building about it will almost cer- rotated, pushes the tainly fences, differ from all other but the sides of down the fact that the desired result has been fin- If the a hollow frusto-cone. to form accomplished is no evidence that was it sides, it is is to have ished article perfectly obvious: anything more for me think hard majority, fortify conclusion, disk to use a its than to obvious principle first of the two invokes the with—the that a doubt start as to says patentability constitute should be which the resolved in favor applicant. art made It is too for advance over late me to Being question provided a ta- the existence rule, of that al- invention.1 necessity though wrong on, I think work to clothe pered disk to an in- the, - taperecl non-parallel change in a over references is a -of the blank and 1. “The * *(cid:127)- one, .-Change being in 'the validity Davis, Teterboro, J.N. admittedly Herbert L. doubtful vention of C., pat- (Emory Naylor, Washington, strong D. presumption that the C. counsel), appellant. presumption valid—a on it ent based more, puts the itself, without Washington, Moore, C. Clarence D. W. compel others position to owner in a (George Roeming, counsel), for C. costly usually of it their use defend Commissioner of Patents. infringement always troublesome present case However, in the suit. WORLEY, Judge, Before Chief the court invention before feel that RICH, Judges. SMITH, MARTIN and ex- there plainly one an obvious call whatever no doubt ists Judge. RICH, play. Such into referred to rule be created doubt cannot appeal rejection is from utility alone. appellant’s application claim 16 of Ser. decision I would affirm 536,915, No. September 27, filed Indicating for “Attitude Instrument.”
No claim is allowed.
The invention relates an aircraft pitch indicating and bank1 instrument which, mechanism, totality its complexity. is of considerable mechanical ap- contribution to the art made pellant, however, relatively simple ais improvement acknowledged over attempt briefly art. We shall Application E. HURLBURT. of Charles late these two matters. Appeal No. 6780. pitchA and bank indicator anis instru of Customs Court United States *7 panel ment on the before an aircraft and Patent pilot in which he can see indicia which 4,May 1962. glance tell him at a whether he climb Rehearing June Denied diving banking whether he is right flying or left or level and shows existing combination of atti these tudes. In the instrument at bar what flying parallel he sees when to the earth’s glass a round window divided by heavy line, in the middle horizontal represents horizon, above representing sky which a area is blue representing below which is a black area ground. These areas are ruled off horizontally in divisions. At either end pointers horizon line are cooperate with marks around frame tilts, window so that the horizon bank, degree as in a of bank is indi Fixed relation cated. with window representing horizontal marks aircraft, nosing up an clination of down of reference Pitch is g„ wings, e. to left bank the craft’s transverse to an axis about aircraft wing fuselage. to lower the left Bank in- the craft. is lateral axis of the