Слике страница

ing in conjunction with said second jaw to move the same toward the opposite jaw and to maintain it in such position, substantially as described.

9. In a chuck, the combination of a body portion, a slide or carriage mounted and movable in ways formed therein, a jaw mounted on the carriage, means for securing adjustment of the jaw relatively to the carriage, an electromagnet carried by the body portion, a lever fulcrumed upon the body portion adjacent to the carriage and having its short arm in operative relation with said carriage, an armature secured to the long arm of the lever, said armature standing in line with the electromagnet, and means for passing current to the coils of said magnet.

10. In a chuck, the combination of a body portion, a slide or carriage mounted and movable in ways formed in the body portion, a jaw mounted upon the carriage, means for securing adjustment of the jaw relatively to the carriage, an elbow-lever fulcrumed upon the body portion and provided with a short arm adapted and arranged to engage the carriage, and with an upwardly-extending U-shaped long arm, the upper ends of the opposite members of the long arm being formed with seats or sockets, an armature, arms secured to the ends of said armature, tap-screws extending outwardly from the ends of said arms into the seats or sockets formed in the ends of the U-shaped arm, and an electromagnet secured in the body portion of the chuck in line with the armature, substantially as described.

15. In a chuck, the combination of a hollow body portion, a slide or carriage mounted in ways formed in the body portion, a jaw mounted upon the carriage, means for securing adjustment of the jaw relatively to the carriage, an elbowlever fulcrumed upon the body portion, the lower short arm of said lever being in engagement with the slide or carriage, an armature connected to the upper U-shaped end of the long arm of said lever, a back plate secured to the body portion, spring-pressed plungers mounted in said back plate and bearing upon the U-shaped arm of the lever, an electromagnet mounted in said back plate, and a driving-gear secured to the back plate and overlying the electromagnet.

17. In a chuck, the combination of a body, work-clamping means carried thereby, and electromagnetic mechanism for actuating said means.

The references are as follows: Wescott, February 25, 1873, No. 136,349; Finney and Campbell, September 26, 1882, No. 265,050; Dreses and Barker, September 17, 1895, No. 546,311.

Claims 1, 9, 10, 15, and 17 have been refused because of anticipation. Claim 3 was refused because it was held that it did not differ patentably from allowed claim 2.

The invention is a lathe-chuck, especially adapted for use in a turret-lathe. The chuck is provided with means for mechanically adjusting the jaws with reference to each other, the final grasping or clamping action being secured by the use of one or more electromagnets. The invention, except for the electrical connections, is of the type disclosed in the patent to Dreses and Barker. In this patent mechanical means are provided for actuating the jaw in order to accomplish the final grasping or clamping action.

The question to be determined, therefore, is whether the invention claimed by the appellant covers something more than the mere substitution of electrically-operated means for the mechanically-operated means shown in this patent.


In the patent to Finney and Campbell is shown an improvement in electric-arc lamps. In this patent the holder for one of the carbons is held in place by an electrically-operated clamp so constructed as to secure the holding-rod in any desired position. Broadly speaking, the securing means shown in the patent to Finney and Campbell might be called a “chuck.” It is provided with what may be termed

relatively fixed jaw” and a “ relatively free jaw,” which together comprise the clamping means. Electromagnetic mechanism is provided for actuating the free jaw, so as to release the holder or secure it in position against the fixed jaw at will.

It is believed, however, that the appellant has done something more than merely to substitute an electrically-operated clamp for the mechanically-operated clamp shown in the patent to Dreses and Barker. The electromagnet must be arranged in conjunction with the relatively free jaw so that both may be carried by the body of the chuck, which body must be free to turn rapidly in performing the work for which the chuck is designed. In my opinion these substitutions cannot be made and a structure produced such as is covered in claims 1, 9, 10, and 15 without rearranging the machine so as to require the exercise of the inventive faculty.

Claim 17, however, does not bring out these differences in structure with sufficient definiteness to warrant its allowance. This claim might almost be said to be met in the patent to Finney and Campbell, considered alone. There is certainly not enough mechanism set forth in claim 17 to justify its allowance over the patent to Dreses and Barker when considered in connection with the patent to Finney and Campbell

As to claim 3, I agree with the Examiners-in-Chief that it differs in scope from claim 2. While the multiplication of claims is not to be encouraged, it is believed that these two claims are not so obviously alike as to justify the rejection of one upon the other.

The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is reversed as to claims 1, 3, 9, 10, and 15 and affirmed as to claim 17.


Decided July 29, 1909.


Where the art shows it is old to drive a lathe-spindle through gearing by an electric motor mounted on the head-stock and also that it is old to mount motor-armatures directly on the spindles of machine-tools, Held

unpatentable to use the armature-shaft as the head-stock spindle of a lathe. 2. SAME-MOUNTING HAND-WHEEL IN CONVENIENT PLACE.

Mounting a hand-wheel in a convenient place on the spindle of a selfcontained electric-motor head-stock, Held to require no invention over the art, which showed such a wheel on a belt-driven head-stock.



Mr. George R. Hamlin for the applicant. BILLINGS, First Assistant Commissioner:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief sustaining the Examiner's rejection of the following six claims:

1. A self-contained electric-motor head-stock for lathes, comprising an electric motor mounted on the lathe-bed, and a lathe-spindle, the rotatable element of the motor being carried by the lathe-spindle.

2. A self-contained electric-motor head-stock for lathes, comprising a fieldmagnet mounted directly on the lathe-bed, a lathe-spindle, and a motor-armature carried by the lathe-spindle.

7. A self-contained electric-motor head-stock for lathes comprising a variablespeed electric motor mounted on the lathe-bed, a lathe-spindle, the rotatable element of the motor being carried by the lathe-spindle, and means for regulating the speeds of the variable-speed motor.

8. The combination with a lathe-bed, of a self-contained electric-motor headstock comprising a field-magnet detachably secured to said bed, a lathe-spindle, and a motor-armature carried by the lathe-spindle.

10. A self-contained electric-motor head-stock for lathes, comprising an electric motor mounted on the lathe-bed, a lathe-spindle carrying the rotatable element of the motor, and a band-wheel carried by said spindle.

11. In a motor-driven lathe head-stock, the combination with the motor, and shaft thereof for driving the lathe-spindle, of a hand-wheel for manually controlling the motor-shaft.

Of the references of record those pertaining especially to these claims are: Harper et al., October 11, 1898, No. 612,240; Duncan, May 7, 1901, No. 673,709; Hisey, November 4, 1902, No. 712,537; Benton, May 8, 1906, No. 819,842; German patent to Frank, December 2, 1905, No. 165,847; The Ironmonger, December 17, 1887, page 488.

The construction involved is a simple one and appears readily from an inspection of the claims. In claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 the point of the alleged invention is that the lathe-spindle itself—i. e., the member which drives the work—is also the shaft carrying the motorarmature. In Duncan is shown an electric motor mounted directly on the head-stock and driving a lathe-spindle through interposed gearing instead of directly, as above described. Benton and Hisey show two different forms of machine-tools whose rotating spindles are carried directly by the shaft of the electric motor, and while these are not lathe-spindles it seems clear that the essential idea of the alleged invention is disclosed by them and that to mount the lathe-spindle of Duncan directly on the motor-shaft instead of driving it through gears to give a wider range of speed requires merely the exercise of choice between two known ways in use in the same or analogous arts. Claim 7 includes an element not in claims 1, 2, and 8—that is, “means for regulating the speeds of the variablespeed motor." It is contended on behalf of applicants that the rheostat shown by Duncan does not meet this feature because it is “ an ordinary rheostat and not a variable-speed rheostat.” In this applicants are in error, for Duncan clearly describes the function of his rheostat in the following language, on page 1, lines 85 to 93:

The motor is provided with a controller, by means of which it may be run at various speeds, and hence it will be seen that a great variation in speed control is obtained. This controller may be of any desired construction and is preferably arranged so that there is a controllable resistance in circuit with the field and with the armature. I have shown this controller diagrammatically in Fig. 4.

Applicants put some emphasis upon the fact that their invention relates particularly to wood-turning lathes and is especially for the use of students in manual-training schools. This, however, cannot be considered to put the invention in an art different from the references or render claims patentable which otherwise fail to distinguish over the prior art.

Claims 10 and 11 cover the use of a hand-wheel on a head-stock of the kind above considered for the purpose of enabling the operator to turn the spindle by hand when desired and to afford a means of stopping the spindle quickly. The Ironmonger shows a hand-wheel for this purpose, and, though it is there applied to a head-stock driven by a belt instead of by an electric motor, the general manner of applying and using it is the same in the two cases. The best that can be said for applicant's use of the wheel is that the need of it is more obvious and imperative in his case than in the references, because without it there is nothing whatever by which to grasp the spindle. Merely to apply an old handle in a convenient place and for an old use, where some handle is an obvious necessity, cannot be said to require invention.

It must be held, therefore, that all of the claims define merely variations of ideas disclosed in the references which would be obvious to any one skilled in the art.

The decision of the Examiners-in-Chief is affirmed.


Decided September 11, 1909.


An application was filed in the name of a company. Subsequently the name of the company was changed and substitute papers were filed setting forth that the latter company was the owner of the mark. Held that such ON REFERENCE.

pa pers should not be entered. 2. SAME-SAME-TRANSFER OF FEE.

Where after filing an application the name of the applicant company was changed and an application was filed under the new name, Held that the fee paid in first application cannot be transferred to the later application.


Mr. Edwin M. Hulse and Messrs. Steuart & Steuart for the applicants.

[ocr errors]

TENNANT, Assistant Commissioner:

This case has been referred to me by the Examiner of Trade-Marks for consideration of applicant's request that the substitute papers filed August 9, 1909, be accepted and the name of the applicant thereby changed from Certain Cure Company to C. C. C. Co.

It appears that the application was originally filed by the Certain Cure Company and that objections were raised to registering the mark on the ground that the name of the company, Certain Cure Company, forms a distinctive part of the labels filed in the application and as applied to the goods claimed would be a misbranding, since any one inspecting the labels or buying the goods with the labels thereon would be led to believe that the goods were a certain cure.

In view of this objection the substitute papers above referred to were filed, in which it was set forth that the C. C. C. Co. was the owner of the mark and that the Certain Cure Company was its predecessor in business. It appears also from the statement that the individuals composing the Certain Cure Company are the same as those composing the C. C. C. Co.

It is not believed that these facts justify the entry of the paper filed August 9, 1909. Sections 10 and 11 of the Trade-Mark Act provide for the assignment of a trade-mark and the application for the registration of the same and for the issuance of the certificate of registration to the assignee. No such assignment has been filed in the case; nor if it had would it warrant the permission of the proposed change in the name of the applicant. The fact that the same individuals compose the two firms does not alter the situation.

The papers filed August 9 cannot be treated as a new application and the fee filed with this application be transferred to the same, for the reason that no mistake was made in filing this application such as is contemplated by Rule 72 of the Trade-Mark Rules, under the provisions of which the fee may be returned. As pointed out in ex parte Olsen, (C. D., 1902, 432; 101 O. G., 2079 :)

The mistake which will warrant a return of money is not a mistake of judgement in supposing that the application filed will be valid and allowable, but a mistake in making the payment itself.

« ПретходнаНастави »