COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: Roller Conveyor Bearing Lubrication
Support Bracket Accessibility to change the lubrication tube between
adjacent rollersis novel. The prior art requires dismantling of rollers
to reach this tube.
Final Action: Modified - suggested amendment for an allowable claim.
*******************
The Final Rejection of application no. 164,325 of Francois Bertaud
assigned to Borg-Warner Corporation was referred to the Patent Appeal
Board for consideration. A Hearing was conducted on May 25, 1977 at
which Mr. W. Rock represented the applicant.
Briefly the invention is for a bearing lubrication arrangement for a
roller conveyor. The configuration of the rollers is well known where
there is a single horizontal central roller bearingly mounted on a hollow
shaft, which shaft is supported at each end on a bracket,and a pair of
upwardly and outwardly sloping rollers one at each end of the central
roller, Figure 1 shows the roller arrangement and Figure 2 details the
bearing lubrication passage between adjacent rollers.
(See formula 1)
In the Final Action the examiner refused the claim and application for
failing to define patentable subject matter over the following references.
Canadian Patents
416,012 Oct.26, 1943 Lemmon et al
645,499 July 24, 1962 Franck
764,851 Aug. 8, 1967 Anderson
803,394 Jan. 7, 1969 Nicolous
United States Patent
2,139,293 June 30, 1964 Franck
In response to the Final Action the applicant cancelled the refused claim
and replaced it with an amended claim. As this claim differs significantly
from the claim existing at the date of the Final Action we will not present
a r‚sum‚ of that action.
In support of the allowance of the amended claim the applicant presented
his position (in part) as follows:
...
The newly proposed claim better defines applicant's invention
by reciting structural features facilitating insertion of
the flexible tube into adjacent ends of hollow roller shafts.
This feature is described in the specification on page 8,
lines 20-27.
...
Newly proposed claim 1 contains an additional definitive clause
at the end thereof highlighting a further feature of applicant's
invention. During initial installation or during replacement
with the roller assemblies in place, one end of the flexible
tube can be inserted through the loosely threaded fitting into
one hollow shaft a sufficient distance to permit the other
end of the flexible tube to be brought into registration with
and moved through the loosely installed fitting in the adjacent
hollow shaft and into the interior of the latter. The prior art
does not suggest or permit this.
Canadian patents 645,499, 764,851, and 803,394 and U.S. patent
3,139,293 all relate to tube fittings, but do not show end-to-
end roller supporting shafts. Canadian patent 416,012 shows end-
to-end shafts for supporting rollers; however, there is no way
to insert a flexible tube into the hollow shafts by way of the
axial space between the shafts. Thus the lubrication tube would
need to be inserted at the time the shafts are mounted in the
support brackets and the shafts would need to be removed from
the support brackets if there is need to replace a defective tube.
Even if the bracket 13 of Canadian 416,012 did not obstruct
the axial space between the shafts 21,22, there is insufficient
axial space between the shaft ends to permit a flexible tube and
fittings to be installed with the shafts in place on the bracket.
The single proposed claim is believed to clearly define an inventive,
patentable combination. Claim 1 defines "bracket means supporting
said hollow shafts in axially spaced relation to one another a
predetermined distance and the interior of said hollow shafts being
so dimensioned as to permit one end of said tube to be inserted
axially into one of said hollow shafts by way of the axial space
between said shafts a sufficient distance to permit the other end
of said tube to be moved into the interior of the adjacent
hollow shaft upon shifting of said tube in the opposite axial
direction."
The issue before us is whether the applicant has made a patentable advance
in the art. Amended claim 1 reads as follows:
In an idler assembly for belt conveyors and the like having
at least a pair of idlers in end-to-end relationship, each
idler being rotatably mounted on a hollow shaft by spaced
bearing assemblies and having means communicating each bearing
assembly with the interior of the shaft, each bearing assembly
being lubricated by forcing lubricant through the shafts and
through the communicating means into the bearing assemblies, the
adjacent ends of the idler shafts being joined together, the
improvement comprising:
a counterbore in each of said adjacent ends of said shafts,
internal threads in each of said counterbores,
a seat within each of said adjacent ends of said hollow shafts
at the axially inner end of said counterbores,
a unitary flexible tube joining the shafts together, with the
outer diameter of said flexible tube being smaller than the
inner diameter of said hollow shaft, and
a pair of fittings on opposite ends, respectively, of said
flexible tube having external threads in threaded engagement
with said internal threads in said adjacent ends of said
shaft and deformable end portions which are crimped into
sealing engagement with said flexible tube by being forced against
the seats as said fittings are threaded into said adjacent
ends of said shafts, whereby said deformable portion effects
a fluid tight seal between said tube and said shafts.
At the Hearing the primary reference to Lemmon was discussed at length. This
reference relates to the lubrication of a conveyor roller. Figures 1 and 2
(below) show the details of this patent.
(See formula 1)
Mr. Rock stressed that the applicant's mounting bracket between adjacent
rollers permits accessibility to the lubrication tube (15) which allows for
replacement without dismantling of the roller assembly. The examiner agreed
that this feature is not shown in the prior art. Ile stated that he was
prepared to allow a claim which includes that feature when claimed in a
distinctive manner. We are satisfied that there is no teaching of this
feature in the cited references and that this feature, when clearly stated
in combination, is in our view directed to a patentable advance in the art.
In discussing amended claim 1 at the Hearing the examiner pointed out that
the portion of the claim relating to the support bracket did not clearly
differentiate over the Lemmon citation, Mr. Rock dial not disagree on this
point and indicated a willingness to include the accessibility feature of
his support bracket in the claim. It is recommended that an acceptable claim
should include the bracketted statements as indicated below:
... bracket means supporting (the adjacent ends of] said
hollow shafts in axially spaced relation to one another
a predetermined distance, [said bracket means having an
opening which permits access to the axial space between
the shafts],and the interior of said hollow shaft being
so dimensioned....
In summary, we recommend that the decision in the Final Action to refuse
the claim (on file at that time) be affirmed, but that the decision to
refuse the application be withdrawn. We also recommend that an amended
claim drawn along the guide lines set out above be accepted.
J.F. Hughes
Acting Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I have studied the prosecution of the application and have reviewed the
recommendation of the Patent Appeal Board. I withdraw the Final Action
as it pertains to the refusal of the application. I will accept a claim
when amended as indicated by the Board. The applicant has six months
within which to cancel the claim under consideration, submit an amended
claim, or to appeal this decision under the provision of Section 44 of
the Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 30th. day of May, 1977
Agent for Applicant
A.E. MacRae & Co.
Box 806, Station B,
Ottawa, Ont.