Hall v. Stahl

Customs and Patent Appeals

Hall v. Stahl

65 F.2d 594, 20 C.C.P.A. 1192, 1933 CCPA LEXIS 105

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1933

DocketNo. 3095

StatusPublished

This text of 65 F.2d 594 (Hall v. Stahl) 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

Hall v. Stahl, 65 F.2d 594, 20 C.C.P.A. 1192, 1933 CCPA LEXIS 105 (ccpa 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

Geaham, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

An interference proceeding was instituted and declared by the United States Patent Office on December 1, 1928, between the patent of the appellant, Charles S. Hall, No. 1682961, of September 4, 1928, [1193]*1193granted on an application filed March 6, 1926, and the application of the appellee, Karl Stahl, filed June 28, 1920. The subject matter at issue is improvements in mechanism for recording the pressure and volume of gas cells in lighter-than-air aircraft, of the type ordinarily known as rigid or semirigid. There are two counts in the interference, which are as follows:

1. An aircraft baying’ a gas-bolding compartment therein, automatic pressure responsive means associated with said compartment, a station remote from said means and electrically operated means at said station connected with said first-mentioned means for indicating the pressure in said compartment.

2. An aircraft having a gas-holding compartment therein, said compartment including a movable portion, a member automatically responsive to movement of said portion, a station remote from said member and electrically operated means at said station connected with said member for indicating the changes; in volume of said compartment.

These correspond with claims 16 and 17 of the Hall patent, and are copied therefrom by the .appellee.

The appellee claims the benefit of the so-called Nolan Act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat. 1313, by virtue of a patent granted to him in Germany on August 8, 1918, and published there on March 28, 1922, covering the same subject matter. If he is given this date, his disclosure antedates that of Hall by a considerable period.

After the declaration of the interference, Stahl moved to dissolve, claiming a statutory bar because of his German patent aforesaid, and moved for judgment. Hall also moved to dissolve on several grounds, to wit: On unpatentability of the Stahl disclosure, inop-erativeness, and because the' counts of the interference do not read upon the Stahl disclosure.

The law examiner denied both motions. An order to show cause was thereupon entered, and the party Hall abiding by his motion, a decision awarding priority to Stahl was rendered by the examiner of Interferences, which, on appeal to the Board of Appeals, was affirmed as to count 1 and reversed as to count 2. A request for reconsideration was filed by Stahl, and, upon reconsideration, the Board of Appeals changed its decision and awarded priority to Stahl on both counts. In this decision the board held that both counts of the interference read upon the Stahl disclosure. Hall has brought the matter here, and urges, in this court, that the Board of Appeals was in error in holding that the counts of the interference read upon the Stahl disclosure. This seems to be the only question involved.

Hall’s disclosure shows an outside frame, with an interior rigid gas container attached to said outside frame. The bottom of this [1194]*1194gas container is vertically movable, and is so arranged with flexible gas-proof fabric connections, that, as the volume of gas in the gas container varies, the bottom portion will rise and fall accordingly. As the volume decreases, the bottom will rise; as it increases it will be lowered, and these successive changes in volume are indicated by means of electrical connections on an indicator in the pilot’s car, so that, at all times, the pilot is able to observe the exact condition of the volume of gas in his gas container.

There is also arranged within the gas container a pressure actuated diaphragm, connected. with which is an operating rod. By means of this operating rod, electrical contacts are made, and the changes in pressure within the gas container are shown on an indicator in the pilot’s car. The pressure diaphragm is so arranged that any change in the pressure of the gas in the container is recorded automatically. By this means, the pilot is constantly advised of the pressure within his gas container.

There is no doubt or uncertainty of, the meaning of these counts, as applied to Hall’s disclosure. Hall provides a means whereby the pilot may, at all times, be advised of the state of pressure and volume of his gas.

Stahl’s application, and the showing made by his drawings and specification, are, to a considerable degree, ambiguous. The foreign patent upon which he relies cannot be aided by presumption or implication, but can only be given weight according to the matters which are therein actually disclosed. In re Gillam, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 877, 37 F. (2d) 959; In re Dann, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1031, 47 F. (2d) 356.

Stahl shows the round rigid frame of an airship, within which is shown a flexible bag or gas container. Whether the gas bag is attached to the rigid frame or not, does not appear. It also is not shown whether the gas container is elastic or not. Stahl’s drawings are as follows:

*

Stahl provides a method of recording volume by means of a wire dependent from the point a2 of his gas container. This wire passes over a series of pulleys to an indicator in the pilot’s car, where it is supposed to register the Volume of gas in the gas container. Stahl’s pressure-recording device is a plate which by pressure thereon, operates certain electrical contacts, and by which a bell, or alarm, is sounded in the pilot’s car. Neither the specification nor drawings are explicit as to the location of this pressure-recording plate. It seems probable, from Figure 1, and from appellee’s specification, that this plate is located in the bottom of the rigid frame of the airship between the frame and the gas container. Stahl [1195]*1195admits, by his statements in connection with his amendment of July 19, 1921, the following:

* * * Although this movement is transferred onto the plate of the indicating device by pressure, there is no registration of variations in pressurej but merely of variations of form, the gas bag on coming to hear onto the plate causing a contact to be closed, thus indicating the moment where the gas bag is “ full.”

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