Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Peik v. Rosenberger

Peik v. Rosenberger

113 F.2d 129, 27 C.C.P.A. 1361, 46 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 136
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1940
DocketNo. 4319
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 F.2d 129 (Peik v. Rosenberger) 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
Peik v. Rosenberger, 113 F.2d 129, 27 C.C.P.A. 1361, 46 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 136 (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 reversing the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of the subject matter defined in the three counts in issue to appellant, Louis D. Peik, the senior party.

The interference is between appellant’s application No. 685,025, filed August 14, 1933, and appellees’ application No. 726,188, filed May 17,1934.

[1362]*1362Appellees are the junior party, and the burden was upon them to establish priority of invention by a preponderance of the evidence.

Many questions raised by counsel for the parties and decided by each of the tribunals of the Patent Office are discussed at considerable length and more or less acrimoniously in the briefs befoi'e us. However, as we see it, the real issue presented to us for consideration is whether or not appellant’s application discloses the invention defined by the counts in issue. Being of opinion that it does not, it is unnecessary for us to consider other issues presented.

The invention in issue relates to an abrading machine and, for the purpose of this particular case, is sufficiently described in the appealed counts which originated in appellees” application and of which count 1 is illustrative. It reads:

1. In an abrading- machine, 'a rotor having a plurality of substantially radially disposed blades provided thereon, said blades terminating short of the axis of said rotor to define an abrasive admitting space, a substantially cylindrical (abrasive feeding device of an external diameter less than the radius of the rotor extending into said space and having- a discharge opening- therein disposed to one side of the axis of said rotor and located between the planes of rotation defined by the sides of said blades for delivering abrasive to the inner ends of said blades, said blades terminating sufficiently close to said feeding device to pick up the abrasive with a minimum impact and said blades having substantially smooth mid uninterrupted abrasive-propelling surfaces of sufficient length to accelerate the abrasive smoothly and continuously and without abrupt changes in a substantially radial direction mid discharge it from the outer ends of said blades at an abrading velocity when said rotor is rotated, a rotatable impeller comprising a plurality of impeller vanes disposed within said feeding device, said vanes extending to a region closely adjacent the axis to define a comparatively small axially extending passage, and means for introducing abrasive into s’aid passage and over the inner edges of said vanes, said: vanes being operable to impel abrasive through said discharge opening. [Italics ours.]

The italicized portion of the quoted count clearly describes the disputed feature of the involved invention.

In order that the issues may be clarified, we here reproduce figure 3 of appellant’s drawings and figure 4 of appellees’ drawings. [See pp. 1363 and 1364.]

In his decision, the Examiner of Interferences defined the invention in the following language:

The invention involved in this interference comprises a rotatable member of hollow wheellike structure and includes radially disposed blade terminating short of the center of the wheel to define a central opening. A stationary ring or cage is positioned in this central space and is provided with a single discharge opening in its side to pass abrasive fed therein to the inner edges of the blades. A rotary impeller is positioned within .the cage to facilitate the feeding of abrasive to the blades. Upon r'apid rotation of the wheel the abrasive is thrown from the outer ends of the blades due to the centrifugal forces set up. Since abrasive is fed only at one point from the cage the greater portion thereof leaves the outer ends of the blades throughout an arc which is less than the entire circumference of the wheel.

[1363]*1363It is apparent from the reproduced figures that each of the parties contemplated that the abrading material should be thrown with great velocity against the object to be abraded. The question for determination, however, is whether appellant’s device is so constructed as to conform to the italicized portion of the count herein-before quoted.

It will be observed from an examination of appellant’s figure 3, hereinbefore reproduced, that the configuration at 50 is convex rather than concave, and that the element 60, which is described as being a

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

Related

Pangborn Corp. v. American Foundry Equipment Co.
159 F.2d 88 (Third Circuit, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 F.2d 129, 27 C.C.P.A. 1361, 46 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 134, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peik-v-rosenberger-ccpa-1940.