COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: Link chaining
The reference uses an oval shaped ring member to lock the hooked ends
of an open ended loop to complete the replacement chain link. In the
application the chain is made up of rectangular plate links retained in
position by open ended hooked loops which are closed by an arcuate
shaped plate locking member.
FINAL ACTION: Reversed
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated June 3, 1974, on
application 133,092 (Class 152-129). The application was filed on
January 24, 1972, in the name of Hans O. Dohmeier, and is entitled
"Chains."
This application relates to a chain comprising solid rectangular
shaped links which are held in position by a resilient open-ended
loop member. The loop ends are locked by a slotted rectangular
shaped plate member.
In the prosecution terminated by the Final Action the examiner refused
the application for lack of invention over the following patent:
France 2,007,709 Eisen January 9, 1970
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
The application is rejected on the grounds of obviousness in
view of the French patent 2,007,709.
In the reference a connecting link for use in anti-skid chains
is made in the form of a loop with the ends of the loop turned
out to receive a locking member. figures 5 to 8 of the reference
teach this particular arrangement using an oval ring member
over the extended ends of the loop to form the lock. By using
a metal plate instead of the oval ring taught by the reference
the applicant caused an interference problem, which he solved in
a manner, obvious to any skilled workman, by making the plate
arcuate.
Applicant's device achieves the same result as that taught in
the patent in the same manner.
It is noteworthy that the applicant failed to describe the
arcuate feature in the description as filed, and made no mention
of it in the objects of the invention. It was apparently a
variation considered obvious by the inventor until prior art
showed that the concept taught by the reference was old.
In his response dated August 28, 1974 the applicant stated (in part):
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner has made two allegations
as follows: 1) that the differences as between the claimed
subject matter and the teachings of the French patent are mere
workshop improvements and would be an obvious expedient to one
skilled in the art; and 2) Applicant has defined an arcuate
locking member only for the purposes of obtaining a patent.
In accordance with the allegations of the Examiner, the arcuate
member does not provide any practical solution and is only a
legal point on which Applicant hopes to hang his hat. The
Examiner has further alleged that the arcuate locking member was
a contribution of the draftsman who drew the drawings rather
than a contribution of the Inventor.
Considering the first allegation, a thorough review of the French
patent does not indicate any instructions leading in the direction
of an arcuate locking member. Although the French patent discusses
several methods for locking the loop, there is no suggestion in
the teachings of the French patent that the locking member should be
made arcuate and that the convexity of the arcuate member be
disposed towards the cavity of the loop. In addition, Examiner
has failed to show any other prior art which would support his
allegation that the arcuate shape of the locking member is merely
an obvious variation of the locking member taught in the French
patent. The Examiner has merely stated that this is so, He has
not provided any evidence or any logical reason to support this
statement. As will be more fully discussed, the arcuate shaped
locking member is an inconvenience and expensive shape for the lock-
ing member. In view of the inconvenience and expensiveness of
this shape, it is respectfully submitted that the prior art, i.e.,
the knowledge of those skilled in the art that such a shape is
inconvenient and expensive, leads away from the shape so that the
use of an arcuate shaped locking member is unobvious and therefore
not merely a workshop improvement of one skilled in the art but a
patentable distinction.
Considering the second allegation, as mentioned above, a locking
member which is made in the form of an unbent plate is cheaper to
make than an arcuate plate. It must be appreciated that each form-
ation on any member involves a separate production line operation
and therefore increases the cost of the member. If, as Examiner
alleges, the arcuate shape is used in the claims only as a legal
point and a means by which to obtain a patent, Applicant would
certainly not use these more expensive and inconvenient shaped
locking members anywhere but in the patent specification. As
evidence of the fact that Applicant does in fact use the arcuate
shape locking members in his product line chains, Applicant is
enclosing herein a brochure showing Applicant's product. The
arcuate shape locking members have been encircled in red in
a few places for easier identification.
As mentioned this application is for a chain comprising rectangular
shaped links having aperatures or slots therein. A resilient spring loop
is threaded through the link aperature to hold each link in its respective
position. The ends of the loop are turned out to enable a locking member
to slip over them and hold the links in assembled condition. The locking
member is an arcuate shaped rectangular plate with a slot therein.
The reference relates to a replacement chain link for anti-skid chains
used on pneumatic tires. This link comprises a resilient open ended loop
which replaces the broken link. An oval shaped ring member slips over the
hooked loop ends to complete the loop closure and thereby form the replace-
ment link.
The question to be considered is whether the applicant has made a patent-
able advance over the cited art.
It is noted that the applicant has submitted arguments with respect to
amending the written portion of the disclosure in view of Rule 52 of the
Patent Rules. As the applicant is entitled to describe
any matter that has been disclosed in the application as originally filed,
his amendment complies with Rule 52. Therefore we will restrict our comments
only to the arguments relating to obviousness.
In the patent, the replacement link is a spring steel open ended loop
with the ends of the loop turned out to receive a locking member. An
oval shaped ring of circular cross section is used to slip over the loop
ends and thereby form the new link. There is no indication of using a
flat rectangular shaped member for the looking device or of its arcuate
curvature.
The applicant maintains that the use of a flat rectangular arcuate shaped
locking member helps to support the links in vertical relation to the
road surface. On page 7, at lines 14 to 18 he states:
Thin is achieved by making the locking members 10 arcuate
with their convexities directed towards the cavities of the
loops, so that, when the chain bunches, there is tangential
contact between the links and the locking members which tends
to hold the links edge-on to the road.
A force diagram study of the applicant's device would indicate that the
straight outer edge of the locking member would rest against the side of
the flat link member. When this situation occurs the locking member
would help to support the link on road-edge position.
In reviewing a force diagram study of the application we find that the
peripheral contact between a flat link member with the circular cross
sectional lacking member would act as a pivot point. Therefore the applic-
ant's use of a locking member having a straight end does provide support
to maintain the links in edge-on position which is not found in the patent.
In addition applicant's curvature of the locking member tends to
increase the amount of support surface and thereby reduce wear.
The applicant's locking member is a rectangular plate bent in an arcuate
shape and having a slot therein. This configuration requires more manu-
factoring steps to produce as compared with the loop ring device found in
the patent. A more expensive construction is required to produce the
applicant's configuration to help hold the chain links in "road-edge"
position. The use of cheaper and easier constructed oval ring locking
members would not serve the intended purpose. No suggestion is found in
the patent for the use of a flat arcuate locking member.
According to the applicant he has developed a chain which is cheaper
to manufacture and is easier to replace components than in conventional
chains. On page 2 of the application he stated "it is the object of the
present invention to provide chain and particularly tire chain which
can be readily formed into designated patterns which can be easily re-
paired when broken and which may be less expensively manufactured than
presently available chains." Use of a rectangular metal plate with slots
or holes therein to serve us a wear resistant chain link is not shown in
the art. Connecting the links together by resilient steel loops having
arcuate plate locking members enables cosy repair and helps to hold the
links in "road-edge" position. The patent uses a resilient steel loop
for replacement purposes. An oval ring slips over the hooked loop ends
to complete the enclosure. Applicants use of an arcuate plate locking
member for his chain serves not only to complete the enclosure but also
to help support the plate like links in vertical position.
Claim 1 of the application reads:
Chain comprising links connected together by resilient steel
loops threaded through apertures in the links and with the
ends of the loops closed by means of a locking member located
on the ends of each loop when it is in a resiliently deformed
condition; the locking member being arcuate and located with
its convexity towards the cavity of the loop.
There is no teaching of the use of an arcuate locking member with its
convexity toward the loop cavity in the patent. However, since the area
of contact between the link and locking members is important in the
applicants device these elements must be described. Hence, the structural
configuration of the rectangular link member as well as the flat
rectangular arcuate locking member must be included in the claim. Our
comments are also applicable to dependent claims 2 and 3.
Another distinction should be made between the applicants invention
and that of the French patent. In the former the whole chain is made
up of the special linkage system employed. In the latter the patentee
covers only replacements for broken links so that his links would appear
in only isolated parts of the chain. The effect consequently would be
different in the two cases.
The Board is satisfied that there is present in the invention some in-
genuity which was the result of thought and experimentation. This
will suffice for the grant of a patent. (See Crosley Radio Corporation
v. Canadian General Electric Company (1936) S.C.R. 551 at 556).
The Board therefore recommends that the decision of the examiner to
refuse the application be withdrawn, but that the claims should be amended
as indicated above.
G.A. Asher
Chairman
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and withdraw 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 Agent for Applicant
this 29th.day of Alan Swabey & Co.,
July, 1975. 1117 St. Catherine St. W.,
Montreal, P.Q.