COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
UNOBVIOUSNESS: Patentable Advance in the Art.
While one reference suggests that it might be feasible, no
reference shows the conveyor chain operating in the horizontal
plameto accomplish the functions and practical utility as
contemplated by the present applicant. While the use of
plates to prevent wear may be old, there is no suggestion of
the dual purpose of the plates as "friction drive" means and
"slip" means.
FINAL ACTION: Reversed.
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commission-
er of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated October 25,
1973 on application 104,483 (Class 201-73). The application was
filed on February 4, 1971 in the name of Zoltan E. Zilahy and
Anthony L. Dato and is entitled "Machine Having Overhang Supports
For Pallets." The Patent Appeal Board conducted a Hearing on
December 4, 1974, at which Messrs. Hicks and Proulx represented
the applicant.
Briefly this application relates to a work conveying device com-
prising horizontal chain links which pivot about the vertical axis
acrd are employed to transport pallet carriers past successive work
stations. These chain links have wear elates which contact wear
plates on the carrier to move a pallet carrier to various work
stations.
The prosecution terminating with the Final Action refused claims
1-9 and 11-16 for failing to define any inventive step in view of
the following prior art and expected skill:
U.S. Reissue 25,886 Oct. 25, 1968 Cargill
U.S. 2,819,784 Jan. 14, 1958 Brown Jr.
In the Final Action the Examiner stated (in part):
...
Noting claim 1, it is not seen in what respect any inventive
departure is provided over Cargill in view of Brown. Cargill
notes that a horizontal loop is possible, he uses a chain
drive, he uses stop means on the carriers,(note arm 48b
actuating element 33 attached to the carrier or pallet) Both
Cargill and Brown note that a simple friction drive of a
carrier or pallet is possible. Wear will inevitably occur
between a continuously moving chain or belt and a stationary
pallet undersurface as in Cargill or Brown. To provide
"wear plates" or other resistant means to compensate for
such wear is obvious. It is similar to putting plates
on the soles and heels of shoes to prevent wear. To put
members on one or each of the opposed sliding surfaces to
prevent wear and/or facilitate sliding is obvious.
Claim 11 in setting forth tilt prevention means does not in-
ventively depart from Cargill who shows means 27, 27a which
fit into rails 28 and as can be seen in Figures 4, 5 and 6
this arrangement will definitely prevent tilt.
Claims 2-9 and 12-16 setting forth features such as a brake
actuating mechanism (involving levers and springs and
cams), plungers for actuating levers, lateral pallet supports,
pallet apertures and pallet locating clamps fail to reveal
anything beyond the art in view of expected skill. These
features are held to be in the realm of choice, elementary
engineering design and expected skill.
The applicant in his response dated December 11, 1973 stated (in part):
The invention is unique in providing a vertical rail on
which the carriers move in straight and arcuate paths to
be advanced from one station to another station where work
is performed. A chain mounted on the support is driven at
a predetermined speed and wear plates are carried by the
chain mounted in a manner to permit the chain to bend in
a normal manner and to engage wear plates on the carriers
which are advanced by the chain until stopped while the
chain continues to advance. It is not a question of employ-
ing plates that permit wear. The plates are hardened so
that very little wear occurs between those on the chain and
those on the carriers. The friction drive provided between the
wear plates on the chain and on the carriers is unique with
applicant and has functioned in a very satisfactory manner on
the vertical rail support.
The patent to Brown cannot anticipate the claimed structure since
it must operate in a single path being a continuous belt on
which there are no wear plates to engage wear plates on the
pallets. The Brown pallets are merely frames designed to support
thin plastic sheets which are to be operated on to form circuit
board panels. The Cargill patent employs a chain, a sprocket
and clutch means which produces a drive of the pallet when
the sprocket is prevented from rotating. The Examiner
pointed to the statement in Cargill that friction could be
employed. The patent stated at Column 4, line 61, "For
example, in some cases, it might be feasible to eliminate the
sprocket and clutch arrangement shown in the drawings and
merely have one end of the pallet rest in frictional engagement
on the chain, ...."
Apparently, this has never been carried out as it is stated,
"it might be feasible." It would appear that considerable
ingenuity amounting to invention would be required to have
one end of the pallet rest in frictional engagement on the
chain and produce satisfactory drive therebetween which is
interrupted at the various stations. This disclosure, however,
does not anticipate the structure claimed since the wear
plates are provided not only on the chain but also on the
carriers. This drive proved exceedingly satisfactory on the
vertical rail which permits the pallet supports to extend
outwardly from one side of the rail for supporting the
pallet in cantilever. In other types of conveyors, such as those
showing in the cited art, no operations could be performed on
the portion of the workpiece which rested upon the pallet.
By extending the support in cantilever from the vertical rail, large
apertures may be provided therethrough and through the pallet
so that the bottom portion of the workpiece is exposed for
work operations thereon. This is new with applicant and there
is nothing known in the prior pallet conveying art in which
the article resting on the pallet can be operated on from
below. Considering the art cited the Cargill reference relates
to a conveyor line extending past successive automated work
stations which require accurate workpiece location. Clutch means
is provided for engaging and disengaging a continuously driven
conveyor chain to position each pallet at the precisely required
location.
Considering the art cited the Cargill reference relates to a conveyor
line extending past successive automated work stations which require
accurate workplace location. Clutch means is provided for engaging
and disengaging a continuously driven conveyor chain to position each
pallet at the precisely required location.
The Brown reference relates to a continuously driven conveyor belt for
transporting pallets for electrical circuit panels. Motion is imparted
to the pallet by frictional engagement between the lower pallet surface
and the conveyor belt. Stop members engage matching surfaces on the
pallet in order to hold and position the pallet at fabricating stations
located along the belt path.
The question which we must decide is whether claims 1-9 and 11-16
disclose a patentable advance over the cited art. Claim 1 reads:
In a work conveying device, a plurality of carriers for
supporting and advancing workpieces, a support having
straight and arculate sections upon which said carriers
are movable, a chain having the links Disposed substantially
horizontal for advancing said carriers on the support with
the links on the chain pivotable in a horizontal plane,
wear plates on the chain and carriers providing a driving
relation therebetween when the carriers are free to advance,
and stop means on the carriers which when actuated interrupt
the carriers' advancement and permit the wear plates on the
chain to continue to advance.
As previously mentioned this application employs a continuous chain
conveyor which has carriers thereon for moving pallets to successive
work stations. The chain conveyor consists of horizontal links
that pivot about the vertical axis. Drive means for the carrier is
derived from frictional contact of wear plates located on the chain
and on the carrier. When a pallet arrives at a designated work
station the carrier is held at this location but the conveyor chain
continues to move as it overcomes the frictional force and the chain
wear plates slip on the carrier wear plates.
It is observed that Brown uses a belt conveyor where the weight of
the pallet on the belt develops sufficient frictional drag to cause
it to move with the belt. While the pallet is held at the work
station the belt overcomes the frictional drag and continues to move.
The pallets used are of relatively light weight as they carry circuit
panels for television receivers. As a result, the frictional drag
necessary to carry or hold the pallet is relatively small, and wear on
the belt or bottom of the pallet surface is of no consequence. There
is no mention of the use of wear plates for "driving the pallet or
overcoming wear." Browns conveyor is used in the vertical plane
rather than the horizontal plane as contemplated by the applicant.
Cargill uses a conveyor chain link arrangement in the vertical plane.
Carriers are pulled with the chain by means of a "clutch" arrangement
which consists of a drive gear mounted on a transverse shaft in
the carrier. When a carrier is stopped at a work station the gear
"freewheels" thereby allowing the chain to continue moving. Locking
the gear to prevent rotation allows the carrier to proceed to the
next station. When the carrier is coupled to the chain the weight is
carried by rollers and slide blocks which operate in guide rails.
In the specification Cargill states that:
Many modifications are also possible in the specific
form of conveyor, pallet, fixture and clutch arrangement.
For example, in some cases, it might be feasible to elim-
inate the sprocket and clutch arrangement shown in the
drawings and merely have one end of the pallet rest in
frictional engagement on the chain, particularly in the
case of a horizontal conveyor loop where gravity would
be equally operative throughout the pallets' complete
travel arould the conveyor circuit.
It is significant that none of the references show conveyor chain
operating in the horizontal plane. While Cargill indicates that his
device could have alternative uses and that "it might be feasible"
for his conveyor to operate in this fashion, he does not, however,
suggest what modifications would be required. His carriage structure
discloses rollers at the leading end; clutch gear arrangement in the
fniddle and sliding blocks at the trailing end. Neither the
modifications nor the problems that may have to be resolved in eliminat-
ing the gear clutch for friction drive are described.
The concept of wear plates on both elements to utilize friction there-
between as the driving force for the carrier, as well as their use for
wear surfaces when holding the carrier, is not shown. in the references.
While the use of wear plates to prevent wear per se may be old as shown by
the examiner in the example of a protective plate on the heel of a shoe,
there is, however, no suggestion in any of the citations for the
dual purpose of the use of wear plates for friction drive means
and slip means as contemplated by the applicant.
Of interest is the rationale of the court in Hickton's Patent
Syndicate v Patent and Machine Improvements Co. Ltd. (1909) 26 R.P.C. 339.
At page 348 Fletcher Moulton J, stated:
I have taken the case of Bolton and Watt with the con-
denser, but I can give another. Take the case of the
safety valve for boilers. The man who first discovered
the idea of a properly weighted valve in the boiler
solely for the purpose of relief, if the pressure rose
too high, would have been making a most valuable and
meritorious invention. So soon as he conceived that idea
of guarding against the danger of explosion the carrying
out of the idea required no invention at all. In my
opinion, invention may lie in the idea, and it may lie in
the way in which it is carried out, and it may lie in the
combination of the two; but if there is invention in the
idea plus the way of carrying it out, then it is goad
subject-matter for Letters Patent. (underlining added.)
Clearly the practical utility of the combination of the conveyor
operating in the horizontal plane and the "friction drive and slip
means" as recited in claim 1 is neither taught nor suggested in the
cited references. Accordingly, the Board is satisfied that there
is present in the new combination claimed a degree of ingenuity
which was the result of thought and experiment. (See Crosley Radio
Corporation v Canadian General Electric Company (1936) S.C.R. 551 at 556).
Consequently the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-16 which depend
directly or indirectly on claim 1 is also transversed.
The Board therefore recommends that the decision of the examiner to
refuse clains 1-9 and 11-16 be withdrawn.
J.P. Hughes,
Assistant Chairman,
Patent Appeal Board.
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and with-
draw the Final Action. The application is returned to the examiner
for resumption of prosecution.
Decision accordingly,
A.M. Laidlaw,
Commissioner of Patents.
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 9th. day of
January, 1975.
Agent for Applicant
A. E, MacRae & Co.,
Box 806, Station "B",
Ottawa 4, Ontario.