Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Samuel Egnot v. Robert Looker

Samuel Egnot v. Robert Looker

387 F.2d 680, 55 C.C.P.A. 782
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 14, 1967
DocketPatent Appeal 7845
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 680 (Samuel Egnot v. Robert Looker) 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
Samuel Egnot v. Robert Looker, 387 F.2d 680, 55 C.C.P.A. 782 (ccpa 1967).

Opinions

ALMOND, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of the subject matter in interference No. 93,815 to the senior party Looker.

The parties herein are the junior party Samuel Egnot, assignor to Huck Manufacturing Company (hereinafter Huck) and Robert Looker, assignor to Brown-Line Corporation. Herein involved are the Egnot application1 entitled “Fastener Construction” and the Looker patent2 entitled “Grooved Pin with Reformable Collar to Accommodate Various Thicknesses.”

The invention in issue is a fastener construction using a loekbolt for permanently fastening a plurality of rigid members such as metal plates. The invention is illustrated in figures 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the Looker patent.

Figure 1 shows the loekbolt structure, a pin with a head 20 and a shank 22. The shank has a series of circumferential grooves 30 which are preferably uniformly spaced to form a series of uniform intervening circumferential ribs 32.

The loekbolt is used to fasten two rigid plate members together in the manner illustrated in figures 3, 5 and 6. The lock-bolt is inserted through aligned bores in plate members 25 and 26. Deformable collar 24 is slipped over the shank end of the loekbolt (Fig. 3). Driving tool 33 is used to complete the installation. The tool has two sections axially movable relative to each other, one having jaws 38 to engage the end of the pin and, on axial movement, to bring the head of the pin 20 and the collar 24 against the plates (Fig. 5). With further axial movement, an anvil 36 on the other section of the tool swages the deformable collar 24 onto the shank of the pin forcing the collar material into the circumferential grooves of the loekbolt. The end of the shank extending beyond the collar is now broken off at a groove adjacent the end of the collar. This may be accomplished by tilting the tool either by means of a canted nose to cause the tool to pivot about point 46 (Figs. 5 and 6) or by a canted shoulder on the collar. The pin may also be broken off by a localized radial compressive stress, caused by an added construction on the anvil, acting with a direct pull.

Each groove 30 (Fig. 1) along the shank of the pin has the same minimum diameter to form “a series of frangible breaknecks.” This series of breaknecks permits sheets of various thicknesses to be secured together, since their total thickness will bring one of the break-necks adjacent the outer end of the collar to be broken off. The ribs 32 (Fig. 1) between the breaknecks are of the maximum diameter of the shank to seat snugly into the opening of the sheet and to be engaged by the jaws of the tool means or by the collar when it has been swaged into the breaknecks.

The counts of the interference correspond to the four claims of the Looker patent and were copied by Egnot at the time his application was filed nearly twelve [683]*683months after the Looker patent issued. Count 1 is reproduced as representative:

[682]

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

Related

GAF Corp. v. Amchem Products, Inc.
514 F. Supp. 943 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
Davis v. Reddy
620 F.2d 885 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1980)
Anderson v. Anderson
403 F. Supp. 834 (District of Columbia, 1975)
Sheffner v. Gallo
515 F.2d 1169 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United States
514 F.2d 1041 (Court of Claims, 1975)
Hedgewick v. Akers
497 F.2d 905 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1974)
In re Whittle
454 F.2d 1193 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1972)
Samuel Egnot v. Robert Looker
387 F.2d 680 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 F.2d 680, 55 C.C.P.A. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-egnot-v-robert-looker-ccpa-1967.