Case Name: In re Carl F. Benson and John H. Cowles
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1969-12-11
Citations: 57 C.C.P.A. 797
Docket Number: No. 8185
Parties: In re Carl F. Benson and John H. Cowles
Judges: Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and (Janet, Judge, sitting, by designation.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 797–804

Head Matter:
418 F.2d 1251; 164 USPQ 22
In re Carl F. Benson and John H. Cowles
(No. 8185)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
December 11, 1969
Mason, Porter, PiTler & Brown, attorneys of record, for appellants. Vincent L. RamAlo, of counsel.
Joseph Bchimmel for the Commissioner of - Patents. Fred W. SherHng, of counsel.
[Oral argument October 9,1969 by Mr. Ramib and Mr. Sberling]
Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and (Janet, Judge, sitting, by designation.

Opinion:
Lane, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the count:
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection of claims 3 and 12 of appellants* patent application, serial No. 442,970, filed March 26, 1965, entitled "Overrunning Clutch Outer Member." Seven claims have been allowed.
The Disclosure
Appellants' application discloses a sheet metal outer member, or shell, for an overrunning clutch. The clutch is positioned in a machine element to be rotated, such as a small gear or pulley. A shaft, which is-the source of rotational power, extends into the clutch. The clutch transmits rotational movement from the shaft to the outer member of the clutch through a plurality of rollers which roll against cam surfaces when the shaft is rotated in one direction, thereby rotating the outer member of the clutch in the direction and at the speed of the shaft. The outer member securely engages the interior of the machine element to be rotated, the holding being accomplished in appellants' disclosure by frictional engagement. The outer member disclosed by appellants may be more readily understood by reference to Fig. 3 in their application, which is here reproduced.
The sheet metal outer member 8 has a cylindrical exterior 11, making it suitable for insertion into a circular bore in the machine element to be rotated. The interior of the shell 8 has a plurality of adjacent surfaces 13 against which rollers may bear. Applicants state that if the member 8 is made on thin sheet metal, the bearing of the rollers on the circumferentially spaced axially extending cam surfaces will expand the member into tighter engagement with the bore wall thereby holding the member and the machine element in fixed relationship. When the driving shaft slows or stops, the rollers roll out of jamming relationship with the cam surfaces so that the machine element and the .shell 8 may continue to rotate until their energy is used up.
The Claims
The appealed claims read:
3. An outer clutch member for an overrunning clutch comprising a thin sheet metal shell having a cylindrical external surface of circular configuration for frictional centering engagement within a machine element bore and an embossed internal surface defining a plurality of circumferentially spaced axially extending cam surfaces, said shell varying in thickness circumferentially.
12. An outer clutch member for an overrunning clutch comprising a thin wall metal shell formed of sheet metal drawn to have an outer surface in the shape of a cylinder for frictional centering engagement within a cylindrical machine element bore and an embossed internal surface defining a plurality of circum-ferentially spaced axially extending cam surfaces of uniformly changing radial dimension, said shell wall varying in thickness circumferentially.
The References
The references with which we are concerned are Ferris and Rice.
We view the other cited references as merely cumulative, since none of them shows a pertinent feature not present in either Ferris or Rice.
The Ferris patent teaches the use of sheet metal in forming the outer members of an overrunning clutch, as seen from Fig. 1 of that patent.
The outer member 12 of Ferris includes a sheet metal cup section IS generally cylindrical but bent to form circumferentially spaced cam surfaces. The covering cup 17 is shrunk-fit over the member 12 in order to add "substantial stiffness to the outer race 12." It thus appears clear that expansion of the outer member into frictional engagement with a cylindrical bore wall would be impossible, due to the outer member's stiffness.
The Nice patent shows an overrunning clutch, the outer member being illustrated in Fig. 3 thereof.
Nice teaches that the outer ring member V should be made of hardened steel and attached to a machine element by clamping, the clamping members 'being bolted in place. The outer member V of Hice has a cylindrical exterior surface, which was not true in Ferris. Since the attachment of the Nice outer member V to a machine element is by clamping,
.and since the outer member is of hardened steel, it is clear that no frictional enagagement between the outer member V and the machine element is necessary or possible.
The Board,
The Board of Appeals affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 .as lacking novelty (35 USC 102) over each of three references, Rice, supra, Mattson and Hall. We need not discuss the details of the disclosures of the latter two references. Suffice it to say that none of these three references shows sheet.metal as the material for the outer member nor do they disclose appellants' frictional engagement feature.
The board then affirmed the rejection of claims 3 and 12, supra, under 35 USC 103 based upon Ferris in view of Rice. The board said: "While the outer surface of the shell [of Ferris] is not cylindrical, in our opinion it would be obvious to make it so if used in the environment of Rice, since Rice discloses a similarly cylindrical outer surface."
Opinion
As to the rejection for lack of novelty, we have noted above that the use of sheet metal material plus frictional engagement appears in none of the three cited references. Since these limitations are recited in each claim here, the rejection under § 102 is erroneous.
. Regarding the obviousness rejection of each claim under § 103, we conclude that the board erred in affirming the examiner. Our conclusion is based upon two reasons. First, both Ferris and Rice teach the use of a stiffened or hard material which could not satisfy the limitation in appellants' claims that the external surface be "for frictional centering engagement within a machine element bore." We consider this recitation a proper limitation on the material in an article claim although we do not view it as the sole point of novelty in the claim. Appellants appear to have discovered that frictional engagement would result if the sheet metal is sufficiently thin. The claims here define a thin outer member, and the prior art does not teach that thinness is at all a factor. The difficulty with the word thin is that it is generally indefinite. Here the words "for frictional centering engagement" are not only a limitation on the external surface, but plainly a limitation on the word thin. We do not construe the claims as requiring that the outer member actually be used for frictional centering engagement in a bore, but only that it be sufficiently thin to permit such use and that it not possess any characteristic which would prevent such use. Sometimes, as here, a material is as well defined by its intended use as by its dimensions or other physical characteristics, and in this case we know of no reason why the limitation in terms of use should not be placed in the claims and given meaning in their interpretation. The hard or stiffened shells disclosed by Rice and Ferris both lack the expansion characteristic necessary to accomplish the frictional engagement recited in the two claims on appeal here. Second, the clamping required by Rice indicates that the adaptation of Ferris to the environment of Rice would not produce the invention defined by the claims here. The cylindrical outer surface would be present, but frictional centering engagement would be absent.
We conclude that, taking the references together, a recited element in each of the claims in issue is not shown or suggested. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the board on each of these claims.
U.S. Patent 3,011,606 issued December 5, 1961.
U.S. Patent 348,691 issued September 7,1886.
U.S. Patent 3,174,598 Issued March 23,1965.
U.S. Patent 2,864,629 issued December 16,1958.