Case Name: In re Homer E. Allen, Deceased, Helen M. Allen, Executrix
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-04-08
Citations: 52 C.C.P.A. 1315
Docket Number: No. 7351
Parties: In re Homer E. Allen, Deceased, Helen M. Allen, Executrix
Judges: Before Rich, Acting Chief Judge, and Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatrick.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 1315–1326

Head Matter:
343 F. 2d 482; 145 USPQ 147
In re Homer E. Allen, Deceased, Helen M. Allen, Executrix
(No. 7351)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
April 8, 1965
Arnold G. Gudko for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore (George G. Rooming, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument October 5, 1964, by Mr. Gulko and Mr. Roeming]
Before Rich, Acting Chief Judge, and Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatrick.
Petition for rehearing denied June 17, 1965.
United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge Worley, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code.

Opinion:
Rich, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal is from a split decision of the Board of Appeals affirming a rejection of all claims, 1-4, of application serial No. 36,094, filed June 14, 1960, for "Waler Brackets." The application is stated to be a "continuation" of a copending application, serial No. 715,772, filed February 17, 1958, "filed in the name of the common inventor, now deceased, and full ownership is vested in the same corporation."
The specification also contains the statement, which is true, that "All the subject matter claimed in this application is fully illustrated and described in said pending application."
Correctly described, the present application is a "division" of the parent application. Everything described in the application at bar is described in the parent but much that the parent contains is omitted. The parent application matured into patent No. 2,952,060 on September 13, 1960, three months after the filing of the appealed application.
The sole rejection before us is the examiner's rejection, affirmed by the board, of all claims for double patenting in view of claims 1 and 2 of the issued Allen patent. The dissenting board member disagreed with that rejection.
The Invention
The invention is a waler bracket which is one element of a mechanical combination which, as a whole, constitutes a concrete wall form structure for poured-in-place concrete walls. To understand the element it is necessary to understand the whole structure. We will describe it briefly by reference to Figs. 1, 2, and 5 of appellant's drawings:
Fig. 1 is the waler bracket, Fig. 2 is a fragmentary sectional elevation through a wall form with concrete poured therein, and Fig. 5 illustrates diagramatically the functioning of the bracket to tension the tie rods which hold the form walls in spaced relation.
Fig. 2 shows the five elements employed in combination to make a concrete wall form. 12 and 14 are sheets of heavy plywood which are backed up by studs 42, for example 2 x 4's on edge against the plywood. Tie rods 28 having fixed washers 62 extend through holes in the plywood panels and have heads 26 protruding from the holes. Washers 62 hold the form walls apart. A waler bracket 10 is hung on each end of each tie rod. It will be understood that tie rods are aligned horizontally. Walers 40, which may be 2 x 4's, are horizontally positioned in the brackets to bear against the studs 42. As shown in Fig. 5, the weight of the walers pressing down on the brackets presses inwardly on the walls 12,14, holding them tightly against the washers 62, which are secured to the tie rods by welding or the like.
Since we are concerned only with whether there is double patenting, the important question is the relationship of the subject matter of the claims on appeal to the patent claims relied on by the Patent Office to support the rejection. We will consider the appealed claims first. Claim 1 reads as follows except that the breakdown and emphasis are ours:
1. A waler bracket
for concrete wall forms made of plywood sheets for use with form tie rods having integral heads on each end and spacer abutments and with coacting horizontal walers and certical studding,
comprising:
a metal bracket having a substantially horizontal rest portion; an upwardly directed wall form engaging pierced end of said bracket disposed at right angles to said rest portion ;
a bayonet type hole in said pierced end having a lower portion substantially round
to fit over the head of a tie rod and an upper portion of slot form starting at said lower portion and extending upwardly
and adapted to snugly engage the rod portion of said tie rod said horizontal rest portion being longer than said wall form engaging end of said bracket
so that a waler applied to the outer portion of said horizontal rest portion will produce an effective tie rod tensioning force; and [an?] upwardly directed outer end of said bracket disposed at substantially right angles to said rest portion
to form an engaging surface for the edge of a waler.
The first matter to be settled is the subject matter of that claim. The dissenting member of the board said:
The essence of the holding of the majority with respect to double patenting is that the present claims are drawn to a combination of bracket and concrete form structure, as are the patent claims. In my opinion the claims are drawn to a bracket, per se, as a subcombination, which is suitable to use in the named environment. While it is true that the claims herein refer to the use to which the bracket may be put by statement of use, adaptability and otherwise, such statement of environmental use does not, in and of itself describe a combination. In re Dean, 48 CCPA 1072, 1961, C.D. 474, 722, O.G. 301, 291 F. 2d 947, 130 USPQ 107.
We agree with the dissenter's interpretation except that we would characterize the bracket to which the claim is drawn as an element of a combination rather than a subcombination. The bracket is a single integral entity whose shape is defined, rather than a combination of parts which is the usual nature of a subcombination. It will be seen that the statements of purpose, use, and environment are indented in the claim and introduced by the italicized words and that the rest of the claim, according to "common sense interpretation of language according to the rules of grammar in the context in which it occurs," as we said in the Dean case, describes only a waler bracket and not a combination with a concrete form structure.
The other claims are a second independent claim, 3, and two dependent claims further limiting claims 1 and 3, respectively. Claim 3 resembles claim 1 but differs in scope and terminology. Claims 2 and 4 are possibly a cause for the difficulty in this case as each opens with the phrase, "The combination according to Claim" 1 or 3. As above stated, we do not consider claim 1 or claim 3 to define a combination, or a subcombination, but a bracket. The claim-drafter's inappropriate choice of language in claims 2 and 4 does not change that situation. Claims 2 and 4 themselves, as dependent claims, merely add reference to the bracket corner indicated as "fulcrum" in Fig. 5 and its functional utility.
In summary, therefore, all claims on appeal are directed to a waler bracket and this also corresponds to the invention described in the specification.
We note in leaving this point that the Patent Office solicitor quite clearly agrees with our construction of the claims and was good enough to add to the Dean case cited by the dissenting board member further precedents, in support of his position, as follows: In re Ashley, 50 CCPA 1200, 1204, 315 F. 2d 945, 948, col. 1, 137 USPQ 361, 363; In re Hutchinson, 33 CCPA 879, 154 F. 2d 135, 69 USPQ 138, "and other decisions of similar import cited in the appendices to Kropa v. Robie," 38 CCPA 858, 187 F. 2d 150, 88 USPQ 478. At the hearing he said, "The error of the majority of the board is so clear I'll concede it." This quite thoroughly disposes of the view of the examiner and the board majority that the appealed claims are directed to a combination rather than to a bracket.
We turn now to the claims of Allen's issued patent to see whether there is "double patenting." There are only 3 claims and only claims 1 and 2 are relied on. It will facilitate an understanding of them to add Fig. 3 from the drawings of the patent to more clearly show a featured element, which may also be seen on a small scale in Fig. 2, and in a variant form in Fig. 5, both supra.
The principal parts of the concrete form will be recognized in fragmentary detail, the plywood panel being 10, having opening 16 for lie rod 14 on which is washer 26 and head 22. The adjacent end of the waler bracket is 20, 20' in which is the slot 18. The element being here emphasized is tie rod positioning member 34 which is a sort of second head which keeps the tie rod centered in the hole 16. The purpose of this member, or "positioning means" as it is called in the claim, is to prevent damage to the plywood wall panels when the forms are removed which would occur if the tie rod ends where permitted to sag under the weight of the walers and waler brackets so that the heads 22 became misaligned with the holes and fixed in that position by the setting of the concrete. Since many tie rods penetrate each panel, it. would be difficult if not impossible to remove the panels from misaligned tie rods without destruction or at least great damage. The desire is to reuse the panels as many times as possible.
In patent claim 1, which follows, we have italicized each of the elements positively recited therein from which it should be clear that it defines a combination of coacting mechanical elements, notwithstanding its somewhat inept opening clause:
1. A positioning and tensioning means for concrete wall form tie rods, comprising: a concrete wall form having spaced apart wells [walls'] tvith openings formed therein; a rigid metal bracket having a substantially horizontal central portion and upturned ends each of which are shorter than said central portion; a metal tie rod having a rod portion and ends formed as integral heads providing an inside bearing surface for use in positioning the outside wall surface of said concrete wall form; a pair of spacing washers fixedly secured in spaced relationship on the tie rod and disposed to bear against and space the interior wall surfaces of said concrete wall form; said integral heads being dimensioned to pass through said openings in said wall forms; said spacing washers having sufficiently greater diameter than the said heads to provide annular bearing surfaces on the inside surface of the wall forms, around said openings; positioning means having an outside diameter substantially the same as said integral heads and disposed on said tie rod between the integral heads and the adjacent washers to center said tie rod in said openings in said wall forms; a first end of said bracket having a bayonet opening receiving said integral head and resting on the rod portion of said concrete form tie rod and in contact with the outer face of said concrete wall form, and an opposite end coacting with said horizontal portion to form a whaler [sic] retaining means.
The parent case uses the term "whaler" throughout while the instant application substitutes the term "waler." Claim 2 reads:
2. The subject matter of claim 1 in which a fulcrum is provided at the junction of said first end and the horizontal portion of said bracket; and said bracket providing a lever when bearing on the outer face of said wall form, which permits the weight of the whaler to tension said tie rod when the whaler is placed on said bracket and the bracket and whaler pivot on said fulcrum.
Our view as to the subject matter of the foregoing claims of the patent seems to be in complete accord with that of the examiner and of the board, namely, that they are directed to a combination of walls, headed tie rods having spacing washers and positioning means (34), and a waler bracket which functions, when supporting waters, to pull on the tie rod ends and push the walls against the washers, the positioning means keeping the rod ends centered in the holes in the walls.
The claims on appeal are directed, as we have held, to a waler bracket per se as a novel element usable in the patent combination. They are thus two separate inventions, albeit they may be closely related in use, a novel mechanical combination and a novel element. We hold that there is no double patenting.
Concurrently herewith we are deciding a similar issue in In re Heinle, 52 CCPA 1164, 342 F. 2d 1001, 145 USPQ 131. (Appeal No. 7233.) Our holding herein is believed to be in accordance with and controlled by the following prior decisions of this court: In re Coleman, 38 CCPA 1156, 189 F. 2d 976, 90 USPQ 100; In re Sarett, 51 CCPA 1180 327 F. 2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474; In re Carlton, 22 CCPA 1223, 77 F. 2d 363, 25 USPQ 390; and In re Stanley, 41 CCPA 956, 214 F. 2d 151, 102 USPQ 234. In the Stanley case the opinion discussed Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, saying that the Supreme Court set forth three classes of double patenting cases, the third being:
3. Where the second patent covers matter described in the first patent, but is essentially distinct and separable from the invention claimed in the first patent.
We pointed out that "in cases falling under three, the validity of the second patent could be sustained." We find the facts here to be within that category.
The Patent Office Solicitor cites Miller v. Eagle in support of his claim that there would be double patenting here. We find that it furnishes no support for that contention. Miller v. Eagle "was a case in which there was only one invention. As we said in Stanley (p. 961), "in that case the same inventor had obtained two patents on a spring of pecular construction, claiming the same spring in combination with the same elements in both patents." We will be even more specific. The patentee in Miller v. Eagle based his claim that the patents were not for the same invention only on the fact that in one patent the claims mentioned two inherent functions of the spring while in the other patent the claims mentioned only one of those inherent functions, the mechanism claimed being the same.
The Patent Office brief also cites and relies on the following cases: Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier (6th Cir.), 90 Fed. 732, In re Hadsel, 36 CCPA 1075, 173 F. 2d 1010, 81 USPQ 376; Pierce v. Allen B. DuMont Laboratories, Inc. (3rd Cir.), 297 F. 2d 323; American Communications Co. v. Pierce (1st Cir.), 208 F. 2d 763; and Pierce v. Hewlett Packard Co. (1st Cir.), 220 F. 2d 531. Upon analysis they will all be seen to be cases wherein there was but a single invention and of the Miller v. Eagle type. While there is some broad language in the Palmer Tire case purporting to state the rule of Miller v. Eagle, careful consideration of the latter opinion will show that the broad language is not justified by the facts or the decision of the Supreme Court thereon. It is the insupportable broad language of Palmer Tire the solicitor paraphrases in his brief as a rule we should follow. We decline to do so on the ground that it is against the great weight of authority and contrary to long-standing Patent Office practice, approved by this court, relating to divisional applications.
The decision of the board is reversed.
As it appears in Palmer Tire the statement is :
One cannot extract an essential element of Ills invention from a former patent, without which the former patent would not have been granted, and make it the subject of a subsequent patent.
We do not agree with the view of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1898 that that is a rule derivable from Miller v. Eagle or with that court's views as to what the facts were in that case.
From the facts in Palmer Tire, which was an interfering patent suit under R.S. 4918, it seems clear that the patentees were developing bicycle tires and improved them by developing rubber-bonded cord fabric structure which they patented, claiming the inventions as tires. The court held that they could not patent the inventions again claiming them as cord fabrics. Though the issue the court was deciding was double patenting, its holding was that both of the patents before it were invalid "for lack of invention." The dictum above quoted is simply too broad to constitute a rule of general applicability and should be limited to the situation before the court.