Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/In re Mulholland

In re Mulholland

129 F.2d 860, 29 C.C.P.A. 1222, 54 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 388, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 96
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJuly 6, 1942
DocketNo. 4630
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 F.2d 860 (In re Mulholland) 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 Mulholland, 129 F.2d 860, 29 C.C.P.A. 1222, 54 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 388, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 96 (ccpa 1942).

Opinion

Bland, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

All the claims of appellant’s application for a patent relating to an abrading or polishing machine were rejected by the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office for reasons hereinafter stated, and upon appeal, the Board of Appeals affirmed the examiner’s rejection upon some of the grounds assigned by the examiner. Appellant has appealed here for a review and revision of the board’s decision.

The reference relied upon are:

Poole, 194,879, September 4, 1877.
Peirce, 876,087, January 7, 1908.
Landis, 1,015,567, January 23, 1912.
Sandorff, 2,115,217, April 26, 1938.
Claims 4 and 8' are regarded as illustrative and follow:
4. An abrading machine including a roll having an abrading surface, a work supporting roll positioned beneath said abrading roll, a sheet interposed between said rolls, and coolant means adapted to supply coolant to said sheet and on opposite sides of the area of contact of said sheet and abrading roll, said means including a plurality of connected nozzles each extending substantially in a horizontal direction and positioned at an angle to the direction of movement of the sheet beneath said roll for causing the coolant discharged therefrom under pressure to flow at an angle to the longitudinal axis of said roll, said connecting means being also adapted to overlie the discharged coolant for maintaining the same in a predetermined path.
8. An abrading machine including a roll having a continuous abrading surface,, a pivotally mounted work supporting roll positioned beneath said abrading roll,, a coolant chamber positioned above a horizontal plane tangent to the lowermost surface of the abrading roll, a portion of said chamber extending toward and1 closely adjacent the surface of said last named roll, a plurality of nozzles housed within said chamber, each of said nozzles being positioned to project a coolant • from said chamber toward the lowermost portion of said abrading roll and at an angle of less than ninety degrees to the axis thereof, and means for supplying, coolant under pressure to said chamber.

Appellant’s invention relates to a sheet polishing machine having' a1 long abrading drum, serviced with abrading material, for polishing' such material as thin sheets of metal which are used for making auto[1224]*1224mobile bodies. It comprises means for supplying coolant to the abrading member to prevent excessive heat when the piece of metal is being worked. Appellant points out that sheets of metal, before being ground and finished, contain scale and rough or uneven portions and that in the prior art the work piece had to be passed through the conventional machines many times in a slow and expensive process. He asserts that the cost of having steel plates finished under the ordinary methods was $600 a ton and that by the use of his machine the cost has been reduced to $30 a ton. Regardless of the accuracy of this statement, it is obvious that appellant’s device has eliminated the expenditure of much time and money.

The instant application is a continuation-in-part of a previous application. The invention relates particularly to a means for supplying to sheet metal which is being ground or polished, a coolant (water) in sufficient volume to prevent warping or buckling of the sheet on account of the heat engendered by the grinding. The coolant distributing device is so- arranged that an abundant supply of water, in wedge-shaped reservoirs on each side of the grinding roll, is passed to the sheet of metal being ground and to the roll at the point of contact in the directions as are stated in the claims.

The examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 as being “informal, claims because they claim the work piece as part of the combination which was held to be improper in In re Hodlre, 73 F. (2d) 507, and In re Smith, 56 F. (2d) 302.”

Claims 4 to 10 were rejected as “presenting nothing patentable over the patent to Sandorff in view of either of patents to Poole or Landis.”

Claims 6 and 7 were rejected as “being misleading and indefinite.”

Claim 11 was rejected as “defining nothing patentable over the patent to Sandorff in view of either of patents to Poole or Landis and Pierce [Peirce].”

On appeal to the Board of Appeals, the board said:

* * * It is our view that it would not be inventive to arrange the nozzles in Sandorff so that they will direct the water at an acute angle to the axis of the roll in view of Landis or Poole. These two patents also teach the use of nozzles at .opposite sides of the roll. The Peirce patent is also pertinent.

. The board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 as being in improper form.

The rejection of claims 6 and 7 upon the ground of being indefinite was disapproved by the board.

In order that our discussion of applicant’s device and the references may be more clearly understood, we here reproduce drawings from the instant application and from each of the references cited.

[1225]

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

Related

In the Matter of the Application of James H. Casey
370 F.2d 576 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Application of Carl Louis Otto, Lanelle Burnham Otto and Joan Briton
312 F.2d 937 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 F.2d 860, 29 C.C.P.A. 1222, 54 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 388, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mulholland-ccpa-1942.