Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Thompson v. Dicke

Thompson v. Dicke

110 F.2d 98, 27 C.C.P.A. 931, 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 514, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 52
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 26, 1940
DocketNo. 4269
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 F.2d 98 (Thompson v. Dicke) 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
Thompson v. Dicke, 110 F.2d 98, 27 C.C.P.A. 931, 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 514, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 52 (ccpa 1940).

Opinion

BlAND, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal by the junior party Thompson, from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Examiner of Interferences in awarding priority of invention of the six counts of the issue to the senior party Dicke. Dicke’s application, which was filed April 2, 1930, is involved with a patent to Thompson, No. 2,001,439, issued May 14, 1935, on an application filed March 17, 1933. Dicke copied the claims from the Thompson patent for the purpose of interference.

Counts 1 and 2 are illustrative of the subject matter involved and follow:

1. A single phase synchronous motor having a rotor knd a field structure with two pole faces, each pole face comprising a shaded section having a plurality of teeth thereon and an unshaded section likewise having a plurality of teeth thereon, the teeth of the shaded section of each pole face being advanced relatively to the teeth on the unshaded section of that pole face.
2. A motor according to count 1 wherein the teeth of the shaded section of each pole face are advanced relatively to the teeth of the unshaded section through an angle between one-fourth and one-half of the toothpitch.

While the involved invention is tersely and aptly stated in the counts, we think it is important to set out somewhat in detail certain features of each of the applications which were filed by the respective parties.

The invention of the counts is directed to an improvement in synchronous alternating current motors. The rotors of synchronous [932]*932motors operate in step with the alternating current supplied to the motors. Current is supplied to a field coil, producing an alternating magnetic flux in the core and pole faces associated with the coil. The flux in the pole faces induces flux of opposite polarity in the rotor, which as the rotor revolves, produces a torque tending to keep the rotor in motion. In some of the motors a section of the pole face is shaded and another section of the pole face is unshaded. Such a motor was old in the art when the parties hereto entered the field.

The specification of Thompson, the junior party, in great detail describes his invention which is an improvement on the old style synchronous motor, and such improvement is defined by the counts involved. He conceived the notion that if a section of the pole face was shaded and the other section unshaded (shading of pole sections being a usual expedient in the construction of certain types of motors), and the teeth of the shaded section advanced with respect to the position of the teeth of the unshaded section, many of the difficulties encountered with the old synchronous motor would be overcome. It is needless to recount these advantages since they are conceded here. By the “shaded portion” of the pole face is meant placing a “shading band,” which is a copper ring closed upon itself, around one portion of each pole face, which has a definite and admitted effect on the action of the rotor. His patent is entirely devoted to this improvement of a synchronous motor.

Dicke’s application is for a “Time Indicating System.” His specification and drawings are chiefly devoted to a clockwork mechanism, operating by a spring which is auxiliary to and in aid of a synchronous motor in keeping the mechanism operating when the current goes off or lags owing to heavy load hours, etc. In figure 1 of his drawings he discloses with considerable detail the clockwork mechanism to which is attached a synchronous motor, and the synchronous motor in figure 1 is shown in diagrammatic form. It clearly shows, however, the shaded and unshaded sections of the bifurcated poles as well as the coil by which the magnetic flux is generated.

As a separate embodiment of his invention he also discloses in figure 2 of his drawings substantially the same clockwork mechanism as is shown in figure 1, which mechanism is operated by a synchronous motor in which there is no shading. The clockwork mechanism of the second embodiment may be wound by a motor. There was no claim in his application, until the claims at bar were copied, for a mechanism which specifically called for a synchronous motor which responded to the counts at bar. Dicke’s specification states:

[933]

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

Related

Marvel Specialty Co. v. Magnet Mills, Inc.
297 F. Supp. 1026 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
298 F. Supp. 718 (E.D. Tennessee, 1969)
Application of Adolph Wolfensperger
302 F.2d 950 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1962)
Application of Carl W. Walter
292 F.2d 547 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1961)
Farrington v. Mikeska
155 F.2d 412 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1946)
Keyes v. Slayter
146 F.2d 653 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 F.2d 98, 27 C.C.P.A. 931, 44 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 514, 1940 CCPA LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-dicke-ccpa-1940.