Court Opinion

ID: 9452564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:44:44.653709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:16.305627
License: Public Domain

KIRKPATRICK, Judge
(dissenting).
I find myself unable to agree with the majority.
The change in the pattern of the prior art disc consists of doubling the length of the zero indication along the edge of the disc. This is important because, if the pattern is intended to represent the sine of the angle, the plus or minus sign of the number will change at this point, and a mistake as to the sign would lead to a reading of, say, three degrees instead of 357 degrees of rotation. The ap*1015plicant avoids such large errors by electing to tolerate an inability to detect accurately a minute rotation near the zero point. As a result of lengthening the zero mark and continuing the same spacing around the edge of the disc as existed in the prior art, when the scale or pattern on the disc is read, it will always read one-half lower than it would have read if the original pattern had been undisturbed. I do not think that this change of pattern is a change in an article of manufacture.
I attach no significance to the fact that the scale or pattern is to be read by a bank of photo cells instead of the human eye. I have difficulty in distinguishing the subject matter said to be patentable from the arrangements of numbers on the dial of an ordinary bathroom scale. Certainly, the method of reading it should not be controlling.