Potts v. Kimball

Customs and Patent Appeals

Potts v. Kimball

134 F.2d 327, 30 C.C.P.A. 847, 56 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 556, 1943 CCPA LEXIS 19

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1943

DocketNo. 4705

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 134 F.2d 327 (Potts v. Kimball) 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

Potts v. Kimball, 134 F.2d 327, 30 C.C.P.A. 847, 56 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 556, 1943 CCPA LEXIS 19 (ccpa 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

BlaNd, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office, in the instant interference proceeding, awarded priority of invention of the single count involved to the appellees, Vernon R. Kimball and Robert F. Dirkes (hereafter referred to as Kimball et al.). Louis M. Potts (hereafter referred to as Potts) has here appealed from the board’s decision.

The interference involves an application of Potts, filed March 25, 1931, and renewed May 3, 1939, and a patent of Kimball et al., No-2,135,376, issued November 1, 1938, on an application filed, October 22,1935. The real parties in interest are Potts’ assignee, the Teletype: Corporation, and Kimball et al.’s assignee, the Western Union Telegraph Company.

Originally, tíie interference was declared upon two counts, which were claims copied by Potts from the Kimball et al. patent. Both parties filed preliminary statements, and Kimball et al. alleged no .date earlier than Potts’ filing date of March 25, 1931. Kimball et [848]*848al. were accordingly placed under order to show cause wlxy judgment on tbe record should not be entered against them. In answer to such •order'Kimball et al. filed a motion to dissolve as to both counts. The motion was, by the Primary Examiner, granted as to one count and denied as to the remaining count, which forms the issue in this interference.

The count reads as follows :

1. Signal receiving apparatus comprising a series of movable selector levers, wi independently rotatable selector earn sleeve with a series of cams thereon equal in number to said selector levers and movable past said levers in substantial synchronism with received line impulses, means operated by said earn sleeve to initiate the rotation of a second earn sleeve, means operated by said second cam sleeve to initiate the rotation of a third cam sleeve, and means operated by said third cam sleeve to effect a printing operation and a paper feeding operation. .[Italics ours.]

Kimball et aids motion to dissolve was on the ground that Potts •could not malte the count because his application allegedly did not show the following three limitations of said count:

1. An independently rotatable selector cam sleeve with a series of cams thereon equal in number to said selector levers;

2. Means operated by said cam sleeve to initiate the rotation of a second cam sleeve; and

3. Means operated by said second cam sleeve to initate the rotation of a third cam sleeve.

The Primary Examiner held that none of these contentions were tenable and accordingly denied the motion to dissolve as to count 1.

The Board of Interference Examiners held that although Potts could malee the second and third limitations of the count, he could not make the first limitation. It therefore awarded priority of the invention of the count to Kimball et al.

In view of our conclusion, it is necessary for us to consider only the first limitation. We are of the opinion that the Potts disclosure does not support it.

The inventions of both parties relate broadly to complicated signal receiving apparatus. That of Potts is particularly devoted to such uses as for stock-ticker bulletin boards, while that of .the other party, Kimball et al., is. used in recording telegraph messages. Many parts of the devices are not of concern here. The particular issue at bar has to do with what Potts, in his specification, refers to as a “selector mechanism,” which is shown in his Fig. 65. Additional reference numerals were inserted on Fig. 65 for the purpose of explanation, and the resultant drawing appears in the record as Exhibit A. We here reproduce Exhibit A. [ See p. 849. ]

In discussing this figure of the Potts disclosure, the Primary Examiner had the following to say:

[849]

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