Court Opinion

ID: 9449148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:58:50.527055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:43.861027
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge,
with whom RICH, Judge, joins (dissenting).
The majority opinion is predicated upon what I consider to be an erroneous-analysis of the invention claimed and an erroneous analysis of the prior art.
The invention disclosed and claimed may be fairly stated to be a resistor having a terminal head on the conductor leads so shaped that when it is molded in the high resistance conducting material forming the central body of the resistor, a satisfactory electrical and thermal contact is made and separation of the terminal head from the resistor material is largely eliminated when the resistor is subjected to external forces.
The majority opinion indicates that such features as appellant has disclosed would have an advantage only in the smaller sizes of resistors and properly points out that the rejected claims are not limited to such sizes. The majority does not consider appellant’s statement in the specification that:
“The principal object of the present invention is to devise a more satisfactory head; not only to over*923-come the disadvantages of the frus-to-conical head in the very small sizes, but also to have a, better head in even the sizes in which the prior-art frusto-conical head is completely satisfactory.” [Emphasis added.]
The majority correctly states that the board limited its discussion to the Steen-weg reference, considering the Bradley reference to be cumulative. The majority, however, then quotes a portion from the board opinion which states the board’s erroneous analysis and application of the disclosure of the Steenweg .patent. The board stated that:
“ * * * However, element 12 of Steenweg has a restricted portion interposed between two enlarged portions of the head embedded in the resistor composition, the inner enlarged portion of the head is smaller (note lines 96-98, page 2) and the portions of the enlarged head are embedded in the molded material. * * * ” [Emphasis added.]
However, as correctly stated by the majority in describing this reference, Steen-weg shows a “dumbbell” shaped terminal bead associated with a molded tubular resistor element with the inner enlarged portion of the head embedded in a binding material which fills the core of the tubular resistor. Sbeenweg, therefore, while admittedly disclosing a terminal bead similar to appellant’s claimed terminal head, was not concerned with maintaining electrical or thermal contact between the resistor composition per se and the terminal heads through use of the “lop-sided dumbbell” shaped terminal head.
The majority states that the question to be determined is whether the use of the dumbbell shaped head on a “Megow type resistor is fairly suggested by the references” and answers the question affirmatively. I cannot agree. The majority first states that:
“ -x- * * We note that the frusto-conical heads shown in the drawings of the Megow patents are quite similar to the dumbbell shape, since the sides of the conical element, after being pressed into place, are shown to contain a circumferential concavity. That cavity appears to function similarly to the groove between the end portions of the claimed head in permitting the thermosetting core material to flow into it, which, after hardening, will tend to prevent axial movement of the terminal member. In view of the similarity between the terminal heads in the Megow patents and the conventionality of dumbbell shaped heads in the art, use of the latter in the Megow type of resistor is considered an obvious choice of terminal head to one skilled in the art. * * * ”
I do not agree that the “cavity” shown in the Megow patent functions similarly to the groove in appellant’s claimed construction. Appellant states in his specification that the prior art terminal heads having a generally frusto-conical shape were unsatisfactory since they failed under “direct load”.1 The reason for the failure of these resistors is stated in the specification as follows:
“Also, because of the wedge-action of the frusto-cone, the direct-load test tends to cause cracks in the body. Contrast the inner enlarged portion 18 of head 17 of the present invention, which without appreciable wedge action, locks under that part of the body which protrudes into groove 22 of the head.”
*924Thus, it is clear to me that the “cavity” of Megow (if such a minute depression can be called a “cavity”), does not function in a way similar to the annular groove in appellant’s terminal head. This is because the tapered frusto-conical head shown by Megow, despite the “cavity”, still subjects the resistor body to the wedging action which appellant has stated to be the cause of failure of the prior art resistors under the direct load tests.
The Steenweg patent, as pointed out previously, does disclose a terminal head having a shape similar to appellant’s-claimed terminal head, but is embedded in a “binding cement” rather than in the resistor composition itself. Steenweg, through use of this “binding cement”, was not faced with appellant’s problem of providing a head having satisfactory thermal and electrical contact with the resistor composition itself and which also would provide a bond of sufficient strength to withstand the direct load test.
I cannot agree that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time appellant made his invention, to substitute the terminal head of Steenweg in a molded resistor of the type shown by appellant. Had such a substitution been so obvious, it would seem that the problem faced by appellant would have been solved. However, as indicated by the affidavit of Zabel, the Allen-Bradley Company, assignee of the present application, has worked to solve these problems “for over the last ten years” and resistors embodying appellant’s construction, which meet all military specifications, “are now being manufactured and sold in the regular order of business and have been favorably received by customers whereby these resistors have had and now enjoy a commercial success.”
I have no doubt but that the applicant here is entitled to the claims on appeal. However, should any doubts exist as to the patentability of these claims, such doubts should be resolved in favor of the applicant since the affidavit clearly indicates that applicant’s invention is the solution of a long existing problem and has met with commercial success. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., et al. v. Ray-O-Vac Company, 321 U.S. 275, 64 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed. 721.
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the decision of the board.

. This test is disclosed in the specification as follows:
“The military specification of the Department of Defense of the United States applicable to insulated fixed composition resistors, MIL-R-11B, prescribes the following two rigorous tests: “4. 6. 14. 1 Direct Load. Resistance shall be measured as specified in 4. 6. 2. Resistors shall then be held by one terminal, and the load shall be gradually applied in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the resistor until the applied load reaches 5 pounds. The 5-pound pull shall be applied for at least 5 seconds, (see S. 17.1.)”