Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Chase v. Gartner

Chase v. Gartner

374 F.2d 914, 54 C.C.P.A. 1385
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMarch 30, 1967
DocketNo. 7886; No. 7887
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 374 F.2d 914 (Chase v. Gartner) 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
Chase v. Gartner, 374 F.2d 914, 54 C.C.P.A. 1385 (ccpa 1967).

Opinion

Rich, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

These appeals are from decisions of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention to Gartner in interferences Nos. 92,264 and 92,265.

Each interference involves Gartner’s application serial No. 790,570 filed December 9, 1947, entitled “Assembling Machine and Method,” assigned to Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

Interference No. 92,264 also involves a patent to Chase et al. No. 2,842,832, issued July 15, 1958, on an application filed April 2, 1951, entitled “Apparatus for and Method of Automatic Assembly of Electron Tube Parts to Form an Electrode Cage,” assigend to Radio Corporation of America.

Interference No. 92,265 involves a patent to Wolke et al., No. 2,884,684, issued May 5,1959, on an application filed February 2,1954, entitled “Apparatus for Automatically Assembling Electron Tube Parts to Form an Electrode Cage,” also assigned to Radio Corporation of America.

These interferences are concerned with apparatus for the assembly of a part of an electron tube known as an “electrode cage.”1 The issue in each is whether Gartner has a right to make the counts.

Th apparatus in question includes an endless conveyor chain which carries several “jigs” or “mica blocks” to loading stations. At each station a different component of the “electrode cage” is loaded onto the jig. The conveyor chain positions the jigs roughly at each loading-station. It is then necessary to align the jig very precisely with respect to the loading mechanism. The means by which this final orientation is effected is at the center of this controversy.

The respective appellants, Chase et al. and Wolke et al., disclose the [1387]*1387need for precise orientation and the means for its accomplishment. The Chase et al. disclosure reads in part:

An important feature of tlie invention is a resilient support for the jigs ⅜ * ⅜. Bach of the jigs is supported on [a] bracket ⅜ * * by means of a screw ⅜ * ⅜ in the bracket. A washer * * * made of resilient material, such as rubber is ■extending through [an] oversize opening * ⅜ * in the bracket. A washer * * * made of resilient material, such as rubber is interposed between the head of [the] screw ⅜ * * and the bracket * * *.
This resilient mounting of the jigs is advantageous in correctly positioning a jig in accurate registry with a loading mechanism. Thus when slight inaccuracies in the chain ⅜ * ⅞ dispose a jig out of registry with a loading mechanism, the jig is permitted relative movement with respect to the chain when acted on by the positioning and locking mechanisms to be described. This relative movement is important, since the chain may be incapable of movement during stationary portions of its cycles of operation, to permit correction by the positioning and locating mechanism of a faulty registry. [Reference numbers omitted.]

The jigs are thus mounted in such a way that finer alignment at the loading station is possible in both the vertical direction (because of the resilient mounting) and the horizontal direction (because of the oversize openings in the brackets).

The Gartner application also discloses at least some aspects oí the final orientation problem:

When mechanically assembling relatively small parts such as are employed in radio tubes, comparatively accurately spacing or positioning the parts before relative movement thereof into the assembled position is an important consideration. Where a fixture is used as in the illustrative machine, and it is conveyed past multiple assembling units in succession, it is desirable to include a fixture-orienting mechanism adjacent each unit.

It elaborates as follows. See Fig. 10 of the Gartner application, reproduced below.

The conveyor transports the several carriers to positions opposite the various units, but is of limited, efficacy in accurately orienting' the mica Modes 88. The mechanism for locating the mica blocks and the construction of the blocks themselves is illustrated in detail in Figs. 9 to 15 inclusive. Each mica block 38 comprises several rigidly assembled portions including studs 100 by means of which the block is suspended from its carrying plate 36 ⅜ * *. Hardened inserts 104 and 106 are also provided in block 38, the first having a bore and the latter having a groove for engagement by locating pins that are projected against the block at the end of each conveyor indexing operation. ⅜ * * [Emphasis added.]
It will be observed that the diámeters of the bellows are unequal. An extension 134 is provided on the movable end of the larger bellows, in this instance on the lower bellows 128, for engagement with adjustable stop 136 in frame 114. By virtue of this arrangement the mica Mode opposite pins 130 and 132 will he accurately centered by those pins and the level to which the mica block is finally driven by the opposing pair of pneumatic bellows is determined [by] coaetion of extension 134 and 136. The pneumatic acutating means may evidently be replaced by other suitable operating mechanism, and mica blocks 38 [1388]*1388are representative of any work-supporting fixtures suitable to the assembly-being made. [Emphasis added.]
elDlQ8uS7sspuyrwYmZZ0GJ7DNJ

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

Related

Jean N. Nicolaou v. Michael Cooperman
438 F.2d 993 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1971)
John A. Chase, Roy K. Wolke, Frank J. Pilas and Daniel K. Battstone v. Stanley J. Gartner, Roy K. Wolke, John A. Chase, and Frank J. Pilas v. Stanley J. Gartner
374 F.2d 914 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 F.2d 914, 54 C.C.P.A. 1385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-gartner-ccpa-1967.