In re Richardson (143 F.2d 616, 1944)

BLAND, Acting Presiding Judge.

Henry K. Richardson has appealed here from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner in rejecting claims l.to 11, inclusive, 15 arid 16 of his application for a patent' relating to “Improvement in Lamp Base”. No claims were allowed.

The instant'application, Serial No. 132,-956, was filed March 25, 1937, and is said to .be a continuation-in-part of an earlier application of appellant, Serial No, 692,587, filed October 7, 1933, now patent No. 2,-075,057, granted March 30, 1937. The patent contains only méthod claims, while the claims of the application on appeal are directed to the article. It may be said here that Richardson also filed, on May 14, 1936, an application, Serial No. 79,645, said to be a division of the paretit’ application of October 7, 1933. The Said' divisional application has been abandoned in favor of the one on appeal.

In 1938 appellant’s present application became involved in an interference, No. 75,-785, with a patent to one Daniel K. Wright, No. 2,098,080, granted November 2, 1937, on an application filed January 2, 1936. The interference comprised six counts corresponding to claims 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, and 25-of said Wright patent, copied by Richardson into his application. In May of 1941 the interference was finally terminated, unfavorably to Richardson on all the counts, by a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals. It was there held that the Richardson parent patent would not support the counts, so as to permit Richardson to take advantage of its earlier filing date, and it was further held that Richardson had not proved reduction to practice prior to Wright’s filing date. No appeal was taken from that decision, and the claims in appellant’s application corresponding to the interference counts were finally rejected. Appellant then made slight modifications in two of the said claims, viz., 15 and 16, and continued with the ,ex parte prosecution of those and the other claims now on appeal.

Richardson’s parent application and patent, his said divisional application, the counts of said interference between Richardson and Wright, and the decisions of the several Patent Office tribunals in the interference proceeding are all of record in this case.

The subject matter of the instant application relates to the manufacture of electrical devices such as high-wattage incandescent lamps, power tubes, rectifiers, etc., where metal contact elements are used for the passage of heavy currents. Appellant uses a hollow cylindrical contact pin adapted to fit into a socket connected with a source of electricity. The pin is closed at one end and has a shoulder at its other end. From this shoulder a flaring metal skirt portion or thimble extends upwardly toward the cup-shaped glass base of the lamp. The thimble portion tapers to a sharp edge at its upper end and fits around an apertured glass boss depending from the base of the lamp. By the application of heat, the glass is melted sufficiently to “wet” the metal of the thimble and adhere thereto, so as to form a gas-tight seal. A metal post member or lead-in conductor extends from the hollow interior of the contact pin up through the thimble, the aperture in the glass base, and the glass envelope of the lamp. These post members serve as the supports for the filament of the lamp.

In the prior art, as disclosed by some of the patents of record and also as pointed out in the instant application, it was customary first to bead the edge of the thimbles with a ring of glass and then to fuse that glass to the glass of the base. Richardson, by his method, dispenses with the beading step.

It is important to an understanding of some of the issues that we describe briefly the differences between the drawings of the Richardson parent patent, No. 2,075,057, and the drawings of the instant application. There are four figures in each. In the patent,' each figure shows a base construction in which the boss portion surrounded by the thimble of the contact member does not extend directly from the normally horizontal wall portion of the base but is connected thereto by a bulging or approximately conical portion. The sharp edge of the thimble is not embedded in the glass but merely extends to the conical portion. Fig. 1, of the patent does not show a cross-section of the contact member, but dotted lines representing the lead-in conductor, though unnumbered, extend from above the cup-shaped base portion down to the top of the thimble, so that the exact physical relationship between the lead-in conductor and the interior of the contact member is not there delineated. Figs. 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the contact members in section and show the hollow interior portion thereof in association with the aperture of the boss. No lines representing the lead-in conductor, however, appear in these figures. In the instant application, Fig. 1 is sectioned to show how the lead-in conductor extends down through the base of the lamp and into the hollow portion of the contact member. In each of Figs. 1, 2, and 3, as distinguished from the corresponding figures of the patent, the bottom wall of the base is shown, as entirely horizontal. The thimbles surround the depending bosses, as in the patent drawings, but the sharp edges of the thimbles are embedded in the glass wall of the base, there being no conical or bulging portion separating the normally horizontal portion of the base wall from the boss proper. Fig. 4 of the application is identical with Fig. 4 of the patent, except for numerals. Fig. 4 of the application is reproduced hereinafter.

The references cited by the examiner are: Kruh et al. 1,564,690 Dec. 8, 1925; Houskeeper 1,583,463 May 4, 1926; Madine 1,885,529 Nov. 1, 1932; Wright 1,967,852 July 24, 1934; Wright 2,069,638 Feb. 2, 1937; Richardson 2,075,057 Mar. 30, 1937; Wright 2,098,080 Nov. 2, 1937.

The last-cited patent to Wright is the one with which appellant’s instant application was in interference and is the principál reference. Wright shows a device somewhat similar to appellant’s, differing only in minor- details. He has a glass base for a lamp bulb, having apertures and bosses. Qne of his types of contact terminals is cylindrical in shape and is provided with a flaring skirt and a prong member. The prong member extends up through the aperture in the glass base and is hollow-through a portion of , its length for the reception of a lead-in conductor and support member for the lamp filament. The edge of the flaring skirt is sunk in, and fused -to,, the glass base around the aperture and • boss, and Wright states in -his specification that the edge may be tapered.

In view of our conclusion,' • it is unnecessary for us to consider the" disclosures of the other references, except Richardson’s prior patent.

We shall, for purposes.of decision, consider the claims in separate groups and take up first, claims 15 and 16, which read as follows:

. “15. A metal contact terminal device for a -bulb-wall base. comprising a rigid post member adapted to extend through the base and a thin flared skirt around said member with its free, edge adapted for sealing to the. base .by a^ fused glass seal to effept a .gas-tight. union, said :skipt having elastic flexure permitting slight relative rocking between said rigid member and said base, [Italics ours.] - . .

“16. An -electric energy..translation device comprising, a vitreous envelope having openings therein, a plurality of metal contact terminals. each comprising a rigid prong member extending through one of said openings and a thin flared skirt around said member with its free edge > sealed directly to the vitreous material around said •opening to effect a gas-tight seal, said skirt having elastic flexure permitting slight relative rocking between said rigid prong member and said envelope, said terminals having sufficient rigidity to support the device.” [Italics ours.]

' These claims are very closely modeled-on counts 5 and 6 of the interferences between Richardson and Wright, No. 75,785. -The italicized portions represent the only differences between the claims and the counts. In claim 15 the words “its free” have been substituted for the. word “outer” of count 5' of -the. interference, and the.-functional limitation “to effect a gas-tight union” was not a part of the count. The same differences exist between claim 16 and count 6; and the word “terminals”, where it first appears in claim 16, was, in the count, “terminal devices” and, where it last appears in the claim, was, in the count, “prong member”. Additionally, count 6 concluded with the limitation, “and an electric energy translation element in said envelope connected to said rigid members”, which has been omitted from claim 16.

One of the examiner’s grounds of rejection of these claims, approved by the board, was that the slight changes were insufficient to distinguish the claims from the counts and that accordingly the claims were unpatentable over the issues of the interference. ■

It is obvious from the! above comparison of these claims with the interference counts that the only difference which could .possibly lend patentable distinction is that between the terms “its free edge” and “outer edge”. According to the construction placed upon the counts in the interference proceeding, the term “outer edge” was held to include a marginal portion of the-outer surface of the thimble near'its edge: No appeal was taken from the decision of the board in the interference proceeding, and that construction is no longer open to question. ■ The- issue here, therefore, - is whether or not the words “its free” or “free” have, under the circumstances at bar, any different meaning -from the word “outer”. While, of course, in many respects the word “free” may,'under circumstances different from those at bar, be far different in meaning from the word “outer”, it is our view that when applied to the facts at bar there could be no possible patentable distinction by reason of this fact between the claims in controversy and the counts of the interference, the remaining language of the claims being almost identical with the language of the counts as- heretofore pointed out. We therefore approve this ground of rejection on the part of the board with respect to claims 15 and 16.

We next consider claims 5 and 6, of which claim 5 is illustrative and reads as follows: “5. An electrical device comprising a glass vessel, an aperture leading from said, vessel and defined by a hollow boss on a wall thereof, and a metal contact .member comprising a cylindrical portion, serving as a contact proper and adapted to connect with a lead-in conductor, and a hollow enlarged portion with sides flaring toward said vessel, said flaring sides engaging and fitting over said boss, the engaged sides of said boss being formed so thick that the hole through the ¡enlarged portion is constricted to close proximity •with the asso’ciated lead-in conductor, in order to make a strong union, while allowing for the reception of said conductor, and the wall of said vessel extending outwardly directly from the edge of said flaring sides.” [Italics ours.]

We have italicized in claim 5 what we believe to be the critical limitation in both these claims, viz., that respecting the relationship between the aperture of the boss and the associated lead-in conductor. The Patent Office tribunals have held that the disclosure of the Richardson parent patent was insufficient to support such a limitation, chiefly because Fig. 1 of the patent was not shown in cross-section to illustrate the connection between, or the relationship between, the contact member, the aperture, and the lead-in conductor.

Appellant argues that when Fig. 1 of the parent patent is taken with Fig. 3 thereof, showing the hollow interior of the contact member, it is obvious to any one skilled in the art what the relationship is between the lead-in conductor and the opening through the boss, but that in any event the claims do not claim the lead-in conductor per se as a specific limitation. Appellant makes the further argument that claims 5 and 6 are almost verbatim copies of claims in his divisional application, referred to above, and that the fact that the Patent Office allowed entry of these claims by amendment in the divisional application constitutes an admission that they read on the parent case. (The same argument is advanced in connection with claims 1 to 4, inclusive, considered later herein, which claims were also copies of claims entered by amendment in the divisional application, but for reasons which are obvious we do not think this argument is entitled to much weight.)

These claims, 5 and 6, were rejected by the tribunals below on the ground that they did not read upon appellant’s parent patent and were not patentable over the Wright patent No. 2,098,080. We agree with this ground of rejection because it seems clear to us that in the Richardson parent patent the lead-in conductor is shown only reaching to the top of the thimble, and there is no showing as to what its relationship is with the aperture of the boss. In the instant application, appellant has clearly disclosed the relationship as being a continuation of the conductor into the hollow contact pin, in close proximity with the inside walls of the boss. We agree with the examiner, who said, in substance, that one is left to conjecture (it not being shown in the drawings or explained in the specification of the parent patent) just what the relationship was between the lead-in conductor and the interior of the boss. It is conceivable that a connection other than that disclosed in the present application might have been contemplated in the parent case. Appellant argues, in effect, that any one skilled in the art could understand how this connection was made. But, it is not sufficient that one skilled in the art might know how to make the connection. This court has so held in many cases. In Brand v. Thomas, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1053, 96 F. 2d 301, 303, 37 USPQ 505, where it was contended that one skilled in the art would understand how to construct the device in accordance with the count, we said: “* * * Lack of clear disclosure is not supplied by a speculation as to what one skilled in the art might do or might not do if he followed the teaching of the inventor. The disclosure should be clearer than to suggest that one skilled in the art might construct the device in a particular manner. * * *” [Italics quoted.]

We therefore agree with the tribunals below in their holding as to claims 5 and 6.

The next group for our consideration consists of claims 7 to 10, inclusive. Appellant makes no contention that these claims read on his parent patent. Claim 7 seems to be sufficiently illustrative and reads as follows: “7. An electrical device comprising a vitreous vessel, an aperture leading from said vessel and defined by a hollow boss on a wall thereof, and a metal contact member comprising a cylindrical portion serving as a contact proper and formed hollow for the reception of a lead-in conductor, and a hollow enlarged portion with sides flaring toward said vessel and tapering in thickness to a sharp edge, said flaring sides engaging and fitting over said boss with the sharp edge portion sealted in said -wall, the engaging sides of said boss being 'formed so thick that the hole through the enlarged portion is constricted to close proximity with the associated lead-in conductor, in order to make a strong union, while allowing for the reception of said conductor,' and the wall of said vessel extending outwardly directly from the outer surface of said.-flaring sides.” , [Italics ours.,]-

Each claim in- this group has the limitation requiring that the sharp -edge of. the thimble be “sealed in”, that is, embedded in, the glass wall of the ba.se, and this limitation clearly will not read on the parent disclosure, as the Patent Office tribunals have held: The- examiner rejected all these claims' -as> !