Citations
- 46 F.2d 583
Full opinion text
LENROOT, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the examiner, rejecting all of the claims of appellant’s application. Claim 13 is illustrative of the question involved, and reads as follows:
“13. In a mechanical dishwasher, a vat having an outlet in its bottom, a stand pipe connected to the outlet and provided with an over-flow passage some distance above the level of the outlet to limit the normal rise of water in the vat, a tubular post secured to and projecting upwardly from the bottom of the vat above the level of the over-Bow passage, a rotary impeller having a hollow hub surrounding the upper portion of the post and having its upper end extended over the top of the post and closed, and means operatively connected to the hub for rotating the impeller.”
The references relied upon are:
Wolcott, 1,390,223, September 6, 1921.
Walker, 1,397,846, November 22, 1921.
Walker (Br.), 178,318, April 20, 1922.
The alleged invention is described in the decision of the Board of Appeals as follows:
“The rejected claims are directed to a dish-washing machine comprising a cylindrical vat having a frusto-conieal bottom. From the central part of the bottom there is an upwardly extending open topped hollow post that projects above the highest desired level of the water in the vat. From the lowest point of the vat there is a water outlet that extends into a discharge chamber through a vertical tube the height of whose discharge end determines the elevation of the water in 'the vat. Water is supplied to the vat from a supply pipe opening into the cylindrical side of the vat at a point above the level at which water stands in the vat. In the bottom of the vat there is an impeller carried upon the upper end of a motor driven shaft that projects through the tubular post. The impeller arms project radially from the lower end of a tubular shaft open at its lower end and closed at its upper end where it is secured to the upper end of a motor driven shaft. The water in the vat does not rise above the upper end of the tubular post.”
As stated in appellant’s brief, the claims in issue “are predicated upon the fact that the tubular post (as 12) is secured to