Mills v. Hershman

108 F.2d 257, 27 C.C.P.A. 821, 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 131, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 31
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJanuary 4, 1940
DocketNo. 4196
StatusPublished

This text of 108 F.2d 257 (Mills v. Hershman) 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
Mills v. Hershman, 108 F.2d 257, 27 C.C.P.A. 821, 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 131, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 31 (ccpa 1940).

Opinion

Hatfield, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal in an interference proceeding from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of the invention defined in the single count in issue to appellee, Okla H. Hershman.

The count reads:

A reflector button assembly comprising a plurality of reflector button Housings, oppositely disposed laterally extending ear portions on each housing, means joining said housings together through said ear portions and reflector buttons positioned within said housings and partially exposed.

The interference is between appellant’s application, serial No. 68,821, filed March 14, 1936, and appellee’s application, serial No. 719,815, filed April 10,1934.

Appellant is the junior party and the burden was upon him to establish priority of invention by a preponderance of the evidence.

The cause was submitted to the tribunals of the Patent Office on a motion by appellant to dissolve the interference on the ground that appellee was not entitled to. make the claim constituting the count in issue, and upon evidence submitted by the parties relative to their conception of the invention and their reduction of it to practice.

The tribunals of the Patent Office concurred in holding that appellee’s application disclosed the invention defined in the count in issue and that, in view of the evidence of record, appellee was entitled to an award of priority.

On November 2, 1939, counsel for appellant filed in this court a “STATEMENT LIMITING SCOPE OF REVIEW,” wherein it was stated that—

Mills [appellant] concedes that while the evidence shows Mills to be the first to conceive, it does not show diligence by Mills, within the decisions of this Court, before Hershman entered the field.
Mills’ sole contention relied on in this Court is that Hershman is not entitled to a\n moard of priority because he does not disclose the subject matter of th& sole count involved.
Therefore the only question which Mills asks the Court to adjudicate is the right of Hershman to make the count and requests that the Court’s considera[823]*823tion be so limited to that question, as is fully covered in the respective briefs. [Italics ours.]

The cause was submitted to this court oil the briefs of counsel for the parties.

The sole issue before us is whether appellee is entitled to make the claim constituting the count in issue.

Relative to that issue, the Board of Appeals, in its decision, said:

The question of the right of Hershman to make the count we believe was properly decided by the examiner. We note that in Hershman’s Pigs. 11 and 13 the plurality of reflector button housings are provided with laterally extending members which are joined together and the reflector buttons are positioned within said housings. Appellant urges that there are no ear portions provided on the housings of Hershman. AVe are not in agreement with that contention inasmuch as the claim does not call for integral ear portions on the housings and the links) connecting the housing in these figures might well be held' to be ear portions which join the housings together. The holding that Hershman can make the count in issue is upheld.

Counsel for appellant contend that the count in issue

contemplates a structure having a housing, independent of the reflecting unit, for receiving a reflector button whether of the mounted or unmounted type, which housing has integral ear portions adapted to be pivotally joined to similar ear portions of other similar structures. Hershman does not disclose “housings” with “oppositely disposed laterally extending ear portions on each housing” within the meaning of the Count. [Italics ours.]

Counsel for appellant also contend that the term “reflector button” or “reflector unit” is understood in the art here involved to mean either a mounted or an unmounted button, and that, therefore, in properly interpreting the involved count

it cannot be held that the metal casing of the mounted type of button is the “housing” of the Count. The “housings” called for in the Count are housings for receiving either mounted or unmounted buttons including their casings, as - shown in Searight’s drawing. [Searight was once a party to the interference, and counsel for appellant contend that the count originated in Searight’s application.] The housings are separate and apart from the metal casings described and shown in the Hershman application. Hershman discloses no other elements that house his units and cannot therefore make the claim. [Italics ours.]

It is further contended by counsel that figures 11 and 13 in appellee’s application on which the board relied in its decision do not disclose the invention defined in the appealed count, because, it is said, ap-pellee’s description in his specification shows clearly that there are no “means joining said housings together through said ear portions,” as required by the count.

Relative to figures 10 to 13, inclusive, in his application, appellee states in his specification that—

In the type of chain - illustrated in Figs. 10 to 13 inclusive, the refleeting units 13, instead of being mounted in the middle of the links, are mounted [824]*824at the points where adjacent links are connected and, in fact, serve instead of the rivets It as the interconnection between adjacent links. To this .end, each reflecting unit comprises a body 35 and an enclosing shell 36, the rear end of the body being- provided with a projecting stud 37 and the opposite end with an outwardly extending annular flange 38. The front side bars 39' of the chain are clamped between the flange 38 and the front end of the shell 36, while the side bars 40 on the rear side of the chain are clamped between the base of the casing 36 and a nut 41 on the stud 37.
The chain shown in Pigs. 10 to 13 has the advantage that the rivets, as separate parts, may be eliminated, their place being taken by the reflecting units. In addition, by tightening the nuts 41 the side bars of adjacent links are clamped together and the chain held in a definite configuration.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 F.2d 257, 27 C.C.P.A. 821, 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 131, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-hershman-ccpa-1940.