Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/In re Montgomery

In re Montgomery

142 F.2d 262, 31 C.C.P.A. 1055, 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 372, 1944 CCPA LEXIS 57
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 4, 1944
DocketNo. 4888
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 F.2d 262 (In re Montgomery) 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
In re Montgomery, 142 F.2d 262, 31 C.C.P.A. 1055, 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 372, 1944 CCPA LEXIS 57 (ccpa 1944).

Opinion

Leneoot, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming a decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of appellants’ application for a patent. Three claims were allowed, and four claims, 13 to 16, inclusive, were rejected by the examiner upon the ground of estoppel. The board also affirmed the examiner’s decision with respect to these rejected claims, but appellants did not include them in their appeal so they are not before us.

The claims involved in this appeal were rejected as lacking pat-entability over the cited prior art.

Claims 2 and 10 are illustrative and read as follows:

2. In a machine of the character, indicated, a spindle, a chuck actuator carried thereby, chucking means including a pair of opposed chucking abutments carried by said chuck actuator and spindle, and a spring compensating means interposed between said abutments, said compensating means including a divided ring member comprising segments surrounding said chuck actuator, whereby said - divided ring-member may be opened and removed from said spindle in a direction lateral thereof.
10. In a machine of the character indicated, a frame, a spindle supported therefrom, a chuck actuator carried by said spindle, means for actuating said chuck actuator, including a pair of chucking abutments, one of said abutments being adjustable, and means carried by said frame and cooperable with said adjustable abutment, said last mentioned means including a manually operable means located at a readily accessible point remote from said adjustable abutment, for adjusting the same.

Appellant’s application involves two alleged inventions so closely related that division was not required by the examiner. The subject matter relates to machine tools. Claims 2 to 5 embrace one of the alleged inventions, and claims 7, 9, 10, and 11 embrace the other alleged related invention.

The structure involved is quite complicated and cannot be well described without reference to the drawings of the application. We, therefore, attach hereto copies of such of the drawings as are necessary for an understanding of the subject matter involved.

[1057]*1057The examiner, in his “Statement” on appeal, concisely described the subject matter before us as follows (the numerals refer to- the attached drawings) :

These claims are drawn to features of a chuck actuating means for use with a collet type chuck. The actuator structure is typified by that shown in the left hand portion of Pig. 2.
A sleeve 220 which actuates the collet 218 is provided with screw threads upon its outward end. Threaded thereon is an abutment collar 303 which can be adjusted axially along the thread. A lock nut 305, also threaded to the sleeve, is provided with a flange 306 overhanging the abutment collar and a helical slot 307 of the same pitch as the screw threads is formed therein to receive the pin 308 in the abutment collar. By means of gear teeth on the collar and lock nut, remote controlled means 316 may be selectively engaged with the same to first loosen the lock nut, move the abutment along the actuator sleeve, and then tighten the lock nut.
Spaced axially from the abutment collar is another abutment 299 to which chucking and unchucking motion is imparted. The motion of this latter abutment is transmitted to the first mentioned abutment through a compensator generally indicated by reference character 304.

The examiner then described, the spring compensator and its functions which are not material with respect to the questions before us. He concluded his description with the following statement:

By making the compensator in segments the same can be removed laterally without dismantling the entire structure.

The references cited are:

Muehlmatt, 985,536, February 28, 1911.
Drissner, 1,465,257, August 21, 1923.
Montgomery, 2,153,971, April 11, 1939.

We do not deem it necessary, at this point, to describe the disclosures of the references except to say that their general subject matter is the same as that here involved. So far as these patents are relevant to the questions before.us they will be referred to in our consideration of the claims.

The claims will be considered in two groups, the first group consisting of claims 2 to 5, inclusive, and the second group claims 7, 9, 10, and 11.

With respect to the first group of claims, the examiner stated:

Claims 2_and 3 stand rejected as unpatentable over each of the patents to Montgomery and Drissner. Each of these patents shows the organization called for in these claims including a spring compensator between two abutments, except that the compensator is not made in segments'. It is contended, however, that to make the same in two or more segments, secured together, does not constitute invention and amounts to nothing more than the exercise of a common expediency. In various arts where it is desired to remove ring members, casings, bearings, etc., from a pipe or shaft it is common practice to split the parts into two or more segments and provide some fastening means for holding the segment[s] together when assembled. To apply such an expediency to the compensator of

[1058]

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

Related

State v. Pultz
556 N.W.2d 708 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1996)
Hughes v. Salem Co-Operative Co.
134 F. Supp. 572 (W.D. Michigan, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 F.2d 262, 31 C.C.P.A. 1055, 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 372, 1944 CCPA LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-montgomery-ccpa-1944.