Court Opinion

ID: 9450687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:55:30.415011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.446111
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge, with whom WORLEY, Chief Judge,
joins (dissenting).
While I do not agree with the forced interpretation which the board placed on the word “cylindrical1 in claim 26 as a basis for justifying its refusal of the claim, it seems to me that the action of the board in affirming the examiner’s rejection is proper and I would affirm it.
A feature stressed by the majority is the disc arrangement which provides more open work space through which stray explosive particles may be discharged rather than being compacted between holders, as might be the case with holders of another configuration.
In discussing the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over Cope et al. in view of Schwartz et al., the examiner’s answer of January 17, 1963 states:
“ * * * Each of the legs of the Cope et al device has a one-block vacancy at various times. The blocks contact each other and push each other. The patent to Schwartz et al teaches the use of an advancing mechanism with four legs and with cylindrical surfaces on the upper part of the blocks. To employ this teaching on the Cope et al device and use cylindrical article-holding blocks is not deemed inventive. To have the cylindrical surfaces of adjacent blocks in contact with each other is considered merely a matter of design or mechanical skill and not invention.”
This type of rejection continues to cause confusion but to the extent it indicates a statutory ground of rejection, it is a rejection for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. To the extent this is a proper interpretation of the examiner’s position, it seems to be entirely consistent with appellants’ own statement in the specification:
“A feature of the present invention is that the loading units can also be used with any other type of receptacle positioning device. Chain link conveyors, indexing rotors and even manual positioning can be substituted for the disc-and-track assembly of Fig. 3. The disc-and-*214track assembly can have rectangular or square discs rather than the circular ones shown in Fig. 3, although the circular discs provide a more open work space through which stray particles can more readily fall, and also provide minimum contact between holders (at the point where the discs engage) so that there is less likelihood of wedging explosive particles and detonating them.”
It seems to me that the presently asserted advantage in connection with the open work space between circular discs is very ephemeral if, as taught by appellants in the above-quoted portion of their specification, “rectangular or square discs” can be used rather than circular ones. Thus, if we interpret the term “cylindrical article-holding blocks” of appealed claim 26 in the light of the specification, it may well include both the rectangular and square discs which appellants contemplate using as equivalent structures. The precise term appellants use in the disclosure to describe their discs is “circular.” To claim them as “cylindrical,” as in claim 26, particularly in view of the suggested breath of this term to embrace forms other than circular, suggests that a claim so worded, when interpreted to include the rectangular or square discs which appellants have disclosed as their mechanical equivalents in the conveyor, reads upon the Cope et al. conveyor structure.
Also, I am not impressed, as the majority seems to be, with the argument that the “cylindrical” form of disc is important to the safety aspects of the operation. My thinking in this respect admittedly is influenced by appellants’ statement in their specification that:
“When the apparatus of the present invention is used for loading explosives, it is desirable to provide suction ducts opening at any location on the machine where some of the explosive material is apt to be spilled. The place at which brushing of excess fillant from the top of the receptacle takes place is such a location and the unloading site is usually another such location. The suction ducts can be connected through water traps to a suction blower so that explosive particles are trapped by the water and thereby rendered innocuous.”
I would, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 26.