194 F. 427 | 2d Cir. | 1911
(after stating the facts as above).
The primary question then is whether invention is to be found in the present claims of which we may take claim 1 as typical, the elements being:
(a) Stationary terminals with contact faces in substantially the same line and with a supporting base;
(b) A laminated member having beveled ends for engagement with the faces of the terminals;
(c) A supporting arm pivoted at one end to the base and attached to the laminated member at substantially the middle part of the latter and at a considerable distance from the axis of movement of said arms :
(d) An actuating lever pivoted to the base and having a movable connection with the supporting arm.
The advantages of this construction urged by the complainant in its brief may thus be summarized:
(1) It is said that by the adoption oE the beveled laminated contact member perfect contact is obtained and the binding friction of the old switches obviated. Indeed as shown by the specification this seems to have been regarded by the patentees themselves as the principal change from the prior art. Tt is also pointed out in the brief that the scraping action of the laminae keeps the surfaces bright: and secures good contact.
(2) It is contended that by mounting the movable contact upon a swinging arm a wide break is secured to interrupt the arc.
(3) It is also urged that the movement of the swinging arm is such that a minimum of lateral space is required.
Much stress is placed upon the presence and action of a toggle lever, but we find no reference to that form of construction in the claims in issue nor do we think the presence of such a lever necessarily to be read into the claims by reason of anything in the drawings or specification. Indeed one of the drawings shows a form of connection other than a toggle lever.
Now, the record! shows clearly that at the date of this alleged invention, the use of a laminated contact member with beveled ends was old in the art of electrical switches. The departure from the gripping engagement of the old kpife-contact and the substitution therefor of face to face contacts, are shown by several patents older than this one. So pivoted supporting arms, actuating levers and various forms of connections for bringing the movable member into contact with the stationary members and for breaking the arc are shown in earlier patents. It is unnecessary to seek precise anticipations. It is sufficient to say that with the structures in the prior art shown by the record, we think that mechanical skill was quite sufficient to obtain any advantages disclosed by the patent. In our opinion, the elements of the claims considered separately are old, and we find nothing in their combination disclosing invention.
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.