Case Name: In re WILSON
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1931-02-03
Citations: 46 F.2d 571
Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 2580
Parties: In re WILSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 46
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
In re WILSON.
Patent Appeal No. 2580.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Feb. 3, 1931.
Wallace R. Lane, of Chicago, Ill. (F. F. Mason, of Chicago, Ill., and Wm. S. Hodges, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
BLAND, Associate Judge.
The subject-matter of this ex parte appeal from Ike decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, af firming the decision of the Examiner, is for improved vehicle wheels, claimed to be operable in both vertical and inclined positions, as on a road grader.
In the use of a road grader it is often necessary for one wheel to run in the ditch at the side of the road while the other is on more level ground and nearer the center of the road. In order that the wheels may not slip and that the vehicle may have traction, applicant's device is so constructed that projecting flanges on each side of the tire of the wheel come in contact with the road when the wheels stand at an angle. The rim, bolts, nuts, and tire are so arranged as to provide a means which the applicant claims will prevent skidding.
The claims were rejected upon the following references: Reid, 623,034, April 11, 1899; Neill and others, 683,220, September 24, 1901; Bosworth, 1,043,061, November 5, 1912; Gray, 1,240,337, September 18, 1917; Dawson, 1,487,920, March 25, 1924; Hutchinson (Fr. Add.), 8,014, of 1907; Cann (French), 389,296, of 1908.
We have carefully examined the references and the opinions of the tribunals below, and have considered the.argument of counsel on both sides, and agree with the Board of Appeals that applicant has disclosed nothing patentable over the prior art cited, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.
Affirmed.