COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: Junction Plate
A junction plate for a geodesic dome structure was refused in view of two
citations. Claims specifying sloping walls which act as a cam surface to
force the strut member into proper angular relationship to the plate were
considered to be acceptable, the remaining claims were refused. Final action-modified.
****************
Patent application 394,837 was filed on January 25, 1982 for an invent-
ion entitled Junction Plate. The inventor is David O. Hamel, assignor
to East-West Design Inc. The examiner in charge of the application took
a Final Action on December 7, 1983 refusing to allow it to proceed to
patent. A Hearing was held on April 17, 1985 at which the Applicant was
represented by his patent agent Joan VanZant and Mr. Ulrich Sieloff, an
associate of the inventor.
The subject matter of this application is a junction plate for a geodesic
dome structure made from a round disc of metallic plate material by a single
stamping operation. Figures 1 and 3 shown below illustrate the invention.
<IMGS>
A plurality of channels (7) with sloping edges (10,11) are sized to
firmly grasp struts (4) when bolt (5) is tightened.
In the Final Action the examiner refused all the claims in the application
in view of the following patents:
United States: 3,270,478 Sept. 6, 1966 Attwood
3,844,664 Oct. 29, 1974 Hogan
Hogan relates to a junction plate for an "icosahedron structure". It is
in the form of a flat, flexible, circular plate having a wedge shaped gap
and five identical sectors which radiate from the plate centre. Figures
1 and 4 shown below are illustrative of the disc.
<IMGS>
Wedge-shaped gap 9 and the flexibility of the plate allow the sectors con-
taining holes 14 and 13 to move to align the holes (figure 4) when used for
building purposes. On the face of each of the surface sectors (3-7) a three
sided ridge (10) serves to locate struts which are retained by bolts through
the holes in each ridge member.
Attwood describes the use of junction plates for attaching strut members in
building construction. Figure 7 is illustrated here.
<IMG>
Circular coined projections (25F, 25G) match recesses in metal struts which
are bolted in position through hole 25D.
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
...
It is considered that applicant's claimed device is not patent-
able over Hogan and Attwood. The only difference between the
claimed device and Hogan's device is the manner in which the
channels are made. Hogan produces his channels by "adding on" a
three-sided trough into which the frame members fit and are
fastened. Applicant, on the other hand, produces his channels
by pressing or stamping them from the metal of the plate per se.
While this is different, it is not a patentable difference. The
metal stamping and forming art is quite capable of providing inform-
ation on how to stamp such a device. In any case, the device
set forth by Attwood teaches such a structure, granted in a
slightly different plate.
Applicant's arguments with regard to the applicability of Hogan
as a reference are not persuasive. It is conceded that Hogan's
structure is not as strong as applicant's plate, but this is
simply a matter of degree and choice. Also bending the plate into
the desired shape by stamping as applicant does as opposed to
providing lines along which the plate may be bent easily is simply
a matter of choice. The provision of one or two fastening holes
is irrelevant and of no patentable importance.
Applicant further argues that Hogan's channel walls are not as high
as his. This too is simply a matter of degree and choice. Hogan's
channel walls will cooperate with the bolts to effectively fix the
angular relationship between the struts and the plates. Restriction
of sideward motion is obviously precluded by the bolts in any case.
Notwithstanding the above, Attwood shows a similar device with very
high side walls that will operate in a similar manner to the side
walls of the applicant. Applicant argues the inapplicability of
the Attwood channel walls by stating that they diverge too much,
however, he then claims an embodiment in which his own channel side
walls diverge and presumably create the same effect set forth on
the bottom of page 3 of his letter of October 31, 1983. It is agreed
that the Attwood device is much more complicated and stronger than
that of the applicant. However, the Attwood teaching is clear.
It teaches a plate with a plurality of channels to receive struts
as well as diverging channel walls. The angle of divergence is
irrelevant and simply a matter of choice.
To sum up, the state of the art, at the time applicant arrived at
his device, was such that no invention was required. Almost any
imaginable shape can be stamped from sheet metal and using that
method of production is simply not patentable over the method of Hogan,
especially in view of Attwood. Differing from the art by small and
trivial details is not sufficient to warrant a patent.
...
In response to the Final Action the Applicant submitted amendments to
three disclosure pages and to three claim pages. That response stated
(in part):
...
In the new claim 1, there is now specified a generally triangular
shaped web portion extending between the upper side wall edges of
adjacent channels with its apex at the corners of the polygonal
shaped central portion. In applicant's view, Hogan clearly has
no corresponding structure since it includes no polygonal shaped
central portion. The Attwood structure does not have a triangular
shaped web portion since it also does not have a polygonal shaped
central portion. Thus this further aspect serves to distinguish
the invention over the references.
In addition, the amended claim 1 calls for the web portion to be
disposed at an oblique angle to the axis of the plate to fix the
angular spacing of the channels and to provide a substantially con-
tinuous rigid plate structure. Because of this limitation, the
plate of Attwood including the outwardly extending portions 25C
thereof cannot be considered to meet this limitation since they are
not positioned at an oblique angle, but rather lie in a common plane.
In general, the structure of the present invention is a unique
junction plate which is stamped from a metal disk. It would appear
that the Attwood structure is formed in a different manner such as
by casting or otherwise. Judging from the thickness of the plate,
it would not appear that the plate of Attwood is stamped.
New claim 13 is similar in many respects to claim 8 which the
Examiner originally indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
In addition, it also calls for a hole being formed in each of the
channels to receive a fastening bolt to fasten an end of one of the
struts in the channel. New claim 13 also calls for a web portion
extending between the third bend lines of adjacent channels to fix
the angular spacing of the channels and to provide a substantially
continuous rigid plate structure. Clearly, the Hogan patent does
not disclose or suggest the bend lines as called for in new claim
13. Also, the Attwood patent does not include the combination of
bend lines set forth in this particular claim.
No changes have been made to the other claims in the application.
As further evidence of patentability, the following is brought to the
Examiner's attention. The Examiner is already aware of the infringing
activities identified in an advertisement in a magazine entitled
"Bricolage" which offered for sale a plate of identical structure
to that covered by the claims of the present application.
In addition to the above, there have also been several instances of
third parties in the United States introducing virtually identical
junction plate products following the introduction of the junction
plate of the present invention. One of these is identified in an
affidavit filed in the corresponding U.S. application in support of a
petition to make special. A copy of this affidavit is enclosed for the
Examiner's information. The junction plate of the present invention
was also granted an Innovator Award at the 1982 National Home
Improvement Congress and Exposition. A photocopy of an affidavit
by David O. Hamel, the inventor, relating to this award is en-
closed.
...
The issue before the Board is whether the plate defined by the amended claims
represents a patentable advance over the cited art. Rejected claim 1 reads:
A junction plate for securing a plurality of struts into a
structural frame comprising:
a concave plate having a generally frusto-conical shape corr-
esponding generally to the shape of junctions in the structural
frame;
a plurality of channels formed in the plate oriented to extend
radially outward from the center thereof, each of the channels
having a hole formed therein and adapted to receive a fasten-
ing bolt therethrough to fasten an end of one of the struts
in the channel;
a pair of side walls defining the sides of each of the channels,
the side walls being spaced apart a distance corresponding to
the width of the strut to be received in the channel and being
of sufficient height so that the side walls of the channel are
adapted to cooperate with the fastening bolt to effectively fix
the angular relationship between the strut and the plate; and
a web portion of the plate extending between the upper margins
of the side walls of each adjacent pair of channels to fix the
angular spacing of the channels and provide a substantially
continuous rigid plate structure.
At the Hearing J. Van Zant and Mr. Sieloff pointed out numerous differ-
excess in Hogan as compared to the Applicant's plate. They emphasized that
Hogan's plate was designed for use in model structures mainly for display
purposes and was only made of light flexible material. They said no commer-
cial use resulted from the patent and in their view it was a paper patent
only. They pointed out the Hogan reference did not provide a stable structure
such as obtained by Applicant's rigid plate. Further they said Hogan is in
the shape of a cone and does not have the frustro-conical shape with the central
portion having a generally polygonal shape lying in a plane perpendicular to
the axis of the plate. In addition they noted the three sided ridge of Hogan
merely locates the strut member and does not force the strut into the desired
position as do the cam surfaces of the Applicant's formed channel side edges.
Attwood's connector plate has four angled seat portions with coined project-
ions thereon to provide a positive interlock for the metal struts. An
inclined gusset portion is located on either side of the seat portion. This
seat portion has an aperture to receive a bolt for fastening the strut thereto.
It is the Examiner's position that the inclined gusset portion operates in a
manner similar to the Applicant's cam surfaced side edges for positioning the
strut member in the angled seat portion.
Mr. Sieloff outlined the development of the Applicant's plate. Prior to the
Applicant's starplate assembly there were no commercial sales of this type
of item. He stated that the starplate assembly took dome technology which
had been around for a long time and propelled it to the mainstream of the do-
it-yourself backyard builders. In the first year of operating out of his
back yard Mr. Sieloff sold $50,000 worth of these plates. With no advertising
this rose to one and a half million in the next year. Further, by the end of
the second year, eleven companies copied the Applicant's plate of which five
were from countries foreign to the United States.
According to Mr. Sieloff the Applicants developed the plate for use of 2 X 4
(or 2 X 2)wood struts. Because of the variation of size of 2 X 4 lumber
sold throughout the country the Applicant selected channel width of approxim-
ately 1.5 inches and used a sloping wall within certain limits of angularity
on either side of the channel so that any 2 X 4 sold in the country would
be firmly retained by wedging action of the walls on the strut sides as the
strut is drawn to seated position due to the bolt which passes through
the strut and plate.
It may well seem that it would be obvious to take the Hogan reference and the
sloping web of Attwood to arrive at the Applicant's plate design, and we can
understand how the examiner came to that conclusion. However the submissions
made at the Hearing, subsequent to the examiner's Final Action have convinced
us otherwise. In view of the interaction of the camming sidewalls and the
bolt, and of the quick copying and commercial success of the plate, the Board
is satisfied that there is present a degree of ingenuity which was a result
of thought and inventive intellect on the part of the Applicant.
The importance of the sloping side walls to cam the strut was emphasized
by Mr. Sieloff at the Hearing. Not only does this accommodate the two inch
strut dimension with all its size variations throughout North America, but
it also acts to prevent any twisting due to the compressive side forces on
the portion of the strut seated in the channel when the single retaining
bolt is tightened. We believe that this is a feature which must be re-
cited in any claim to distinguish over the cited art which does show geo-
metric forms somewhat similar to the configuration shown in this application.
We note that rejected claims 2, 11 and 12 do specify the sloping side walls
which act as cam surfaces to urge the strut into its proper angular relation-
ship to the plate and we find them acceptable over the art of record. We
recommend withdrawal of the rejection of these claims. The remaining claims
namely 1, 3, 4 to 10 and 13 specify a junction plate configuration which
does not differentiate patentably over the cited art. This also applies to
the amended claims submitted in response to the Final Action.
In summary we recommend that rejection of claims 2, 11 and 12 be withdrawn
and the refusal of the remaining claims be affirmed.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board.
Accordingly I withdraw the rejection of claims 2, 11 and 12 but I refuse to
grant a patent on claims 1, 3, 4 to 10 and 13 of this application. The
applicant has 6 months within which to appeal this decision under the pro-
visions of Section 44 of the Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 11th. day of December, 1985
Agent for Applicant
Scott & Aylen
170 Laurier Ave. West
Ottawa, Ont. K1P 5V5