Application of Arthur Philip Jentoft

392 F.2d 633, 55 C.C.P.A. 1026
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 18, 1968
DocketPatent Appeal 7905
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 392 F.2d 633 (Application of Arthur Philip Jentoft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Application of Arthur Philip Jentoft, 392 F.2d 633, 55 C.C.P.A. 1026 (ccpa 1968).

Opinion

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 3, 9,13, and 14 *634 of application serial No. 144,610, filed October 12, 1961, for “Extensible Plug Valve.” In his brief, appellant “waives the appeal” as to claims 13 and 14 so as to them the appeal will be dismissed, leaving for consideration only claims 3 and 9. 1

This is an obviousness-type double patenting case in which a terminal disclaimer has been filed and considered below. The sole ground of rejection is double patenting founded on certain claims of appellant Jentoft’s patent No. 3,010,692, issued Nov. 28, 1961, on an application filed Nov. 20, 1959, copending with the application at bar from Oct. 12 to Nov. 28, 1961. The patent is not, of course, prior art. To support the double patenting obviousness contention, the following prior art is relied on:

Work 2,584,523 Feb. 5, 1952
Eisele (German) 800,228 Oct. 17, 1950

The Patented Invention

Broadly, the invention is a gas-flow control valve capable of remote control by fluid pressure which actuates the valve. More particularly, it is an air valve for ventilation systems. The patent discloses two embodiments both operating on the same broad principal but with differing structure. Reproduced below are Fig. 1, showing one embodiment, and Figs. 8 and 9, showing the other embodiment as well as the mode of operation.

Referring to Fig. 1, the air duct is 10 and has an outwardly flared horn 11 at its end where it would open into a room. Suspended in front of the horn by brackets 16 is a cone-shaped structure consisting of a base 14 and a perforate, rigid, stationary cone 15 of metal over which is mounted a conical membrane 19 of *635 resilient, expansible material such as rubber. The membrane 19 is attached to the base in air-tight fashion by strap 29 secured in groove 28. Pipe 22 admits control air into the conical chamber for the purpose of inflating the membrane 19 to partially or fully close the annular passage between it and the horn 11 to control the flow of air through the duct 10.

A modified form, having the advantage of lighter weight, is shown in Fig. 8 wherein the baseplate 14 of Fig. 1 is omitted and the supporting cone 32 is made imperforate, having the air inlet 35 attached to and passing through it at boss 33. Fig. 9 shows, in connection with the Fig. 8 embodiment of the invention, how the expansible membrane operates to effect a valving action when it is inflated. (The Fig. 1 form inflates in the same way.) Dotted line 36a shows the valve partially closed, full line 36b shows it fully closed, and dotted line 36c shows how, on further inflation, the membrane is in contact with the horn over a substantial area. The disclosure of the patent is limited to these two forms of the invention and all of its claims are limited to a “conical membrane of resilient, expansible material” as the means for controlling the flow of air.

This is called the “balloon” type valve.

The Invention of the Application

In contrast with the balloon type valve of the patent, the valve of the application is called the “bellows” type. Fig. 1 is reproduced:

WDUhptDw1vZidn82TupbjIVbhYuDWc4FhM3wW5aT2Ot

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Hubbell
709 F.3d 1140 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
Bayer AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
798 F. Supp. 196 (S.D. New York, 1992)
In Re Paolo Longi
759 F.2d 887 (Federal Circuit, 1985)
In re Ornum
686 F.2d 937 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1982)
B & J Manufacturing Co. v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.
493 F. Supp. 1105 (N.D. Illinois, 1979)
Application of Vincent J. Frilette and Paul B. Weisz
412 F.2d 269 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1969)
Application of Herschel T. White and Arthur W. Langer, Jr
405 F.2d 904 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1969)
Application of Charles J. Plank and Edward J. Rosinski
399 F.2d 241 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
Application of Oliver C. Eckel
393 F.2d 848 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
392 F.2d 633, 55 C.C.P.A. 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-arthur-philip-jentoft-ccpa-1968.