Viele v. Cummings

30 App. D.C. 455, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5553
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedFebruary 14, 1908
DocketNo. 426
StatusPublished

This text of 30 App. D.C. 455 (Viele v. Cummings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Viele v. Cummings, 30 App. D.C. 455, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5553 (D.C. Cir. 1908).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an interference proceeding involving priority of invention of an improvement in connecting conductors for cables, the issue of which is the following:

“As a means for insulating joints in conductors for high voltage currents, a rigid sleeve of nonconducting material surrounding the splice between the conductors forming the bridge or connection between the insulations on the connecting conductors, and having the space between the conductors and- the sleeve filled with nonconducting material.”

The application of Francis S. Viele [the appellant] was filed August 15, 1902, for an improvement in connecting conductors for cables, and the claim now in issue was adopted December 5, 1902. The application was allowed September 20, 1904, but was permitted to lapse for nonpayment of the fixed fee. It was renewed within proper time, on March 25, 1905.

James F. Cummings’s [the appellee’s] application was filed February 1, 1902, entitled a “Conduit for Electrical Conductors.” The claim of the issue was suggested to him by the Examiner April 3, and adopted April 6, 1905. Thereupon, the interference was declared.

Yiele’s preliminary statement filed in response to the notice of interference failed to allege a date of conception prior to the date upon which Cummings’s application had been filed; and he was notified by the Examiner of Interferences that by reason thereof judgment would be rendered against him unless cause be shown why the same should not be done. Yiele thereupon filed a motion to dissolve the interference on the ground that [457]*457there was no interference in fact, and that Cummings had no right to make the claim in issue. This was referred to the Primary Examiner, who denied the motion. The Examiner of Interferences, following that decision, rendered judgment against Yiele in accordance with the notice that had been given. Yiele appealed to the Examiners-in-Chief, who, being of the opinion that Cummings had no right to make the claim, reversed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences, and awarded priority to Yiele. On appeal to the Commissioner this decision was reversed and award of priority made to Cummings. From this decision this appeal has been prosecuted.

The question for determination is the right of Cummings to make the claim of the issue.

Viele’s application is limited to a joint or splice for electric cables carrying high voltage currents, and his invention is described as follows:

“The invention described herein relates to certain improvements in joints or splices for electric cables carrying high voltage currents. It has heretofore been the practice in making such splices or joints to remove the insulation from the sides of the conductors to be connected a suitable distance, and then form an electrical joint or union between these conductors in suitable manner. Insulation in the form of paper or fibrous tape was then applied by hand to the portions of the conductors from which the insulation was removed. It is a matter of considerable difficulty to determine when a sufficient amount of tape has been applied to render the joint as strong electrically as the original insulation. As considerable care and labor are required in applying the tape, the workman is very liable to shirk it and leave the joint imperfect. And, further, it is practically impossible to so apply the tape as to form a compact uniform thickness of insulation. The foregoing difficulties in applying and incident to the use of tapes in forming the insulation of joints are especially prominent when connecting the conductors of duplex and triple cable, as with such cable the conductor cannot be separated to any considerable extent, and the tape has to be threaded between the conductors.

[458]*458“The object of the present invention is to provide for easy and quick formation of an insulating covering for the exposed ends of connected conductors, of a uniform thickness and electrical strength which shall be at least equal to that of the original insulation. The invention is hereinafter more fully described and claimed.

“In the accompanying drawing forming a part of this specification, Fig. 1 is a sectional elevation showing my improvement as employed in connecting the conductors of a triple cable, and Fig. 2 is a transverse section of the same on a plane indicated by the line II-II Fig. 1. In the practice of my invention, the sheath 1 and covering 2 of the cable is removed a sufficient distance, and the insulation 3 of the conductors 4 is also removed, as is customary. Sleeves 5 are then slipped over one of the ■ends of the conductors, and pushed back far enough to permit ■of the ends of the conductors 4 being electrically connected. This connection may be formed in any suitable manner, as, for ■example, by means of a metallic sleeve 6, soldered or sweated onto the ends of the conductor projecting into the sleeve, as .shown. As the internal diameter of the sleeves 5 is made sufficiently large to slip over the insulation 3 of the conductors, there will be considerable space between the sleeve and the conductor when the sleeve is arranged over the joint; hence, in order to hold the sleeve steady and form an internal support therefor, paper or fibrous tape 7 impregnated with insulating wax is wrapped a few times around the sleeve 6 and the exposed portions of the conductor, and plastic insulating material applied to the tape before the sleeve 5, which is made sufficiently long to overlap the insulation 3 on both sides of the point of union of the conductors, is slipped into position. The use of the tape and plastic insulating material is not necessary for insulating purposes, but it is preferred to employ them both as a centering support of the sleeve, and also as a filling preventing ■air spaces within the sleeve. After all the conductors have been ■connected and insulated, as described, the paper sleeves on the several conductors are pressed together, and a large paper sleeve S, which was slipped over one of the cables before any of the [459]*459■conductors were united, is slipped into position over the sleeves •5, as shown, and serves to hold all the parts of the cable. This binding sleeve is not necessary, but is highly desirable as strengthening the joint. As is customary, a sheathing sleeve 9 is placed around the joint and connected to the sheath 1 of the cable, and liquid insulating material, preferably, is poured into this sleeve until all air is forced out and the sleeve completely filled.”

The claim of the issue, having been first made by Yiele, is ■to be interpreted in the light of his specifications. He had not in mind a new insulation for the body of conductors, but an improved means for making and protecting the necessary joints in the ordinary cables or conductors for high tension currents of electricity. His object was to “provide for easy and quick formation of an insulating covering for the exposed ends of conductors, of uniform thickness and electrical strength which shall be at least equal to that of the original insulation.” He uses a rigid sleeve, which is slipped over one of the ends of the conductor, and pushed back far enough to permit the two ■ends to be spliced. The splice is effected by means of a metallic •section or sleeve soldered or sweated on the ends of the conductor which have been brought together.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 App. D.C. 455, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viele-v-cummings-cadc-1908.