Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BURGESS BATTERY CO. v. COE

August 14, 1940

BURGESS BATTERY CO.
v.
COE, Com'r of Patents



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MORRIS

This is a proceeding instituted under the provisions of Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 35 U.S.C.A. ┬ž 63. Henry W. Porth, on February 4, 1936, filed an application, designated as Serial No. 62,302, in the Patent Office of the United States for letters patent, relating to closures for dry cell batteries, containing a socket connection for attaching a pronged plug connection. The sockets are embedded in flexible or pliant rubber which may yield to accommodate plug prongs of slightly different spacings, and such plurality of sockets to provide several different spacings to accommodate a number of prong spacings. The construction is particularly adapted for batteries used in conjunction with hearing-aid devices. The claims in the suit were finally reduced to claims 6 to 8, inclusive, and 14 to 18, inclusive, and these were rejected by the primary examiner and, upon appeal, the action of the primary examiner was affirmed by the Board of Appeals.

The references relied upon are:

 Kammerhoff, 1,266,814, May 21,1918.

 Watts, 1,918,070, July 11, 1933.

 Miller, 1,981,460, November 20, 1934.

 Douglas, 1,982,501, November 27, 1934.

 Koch, 1,983,037, December 4, 1934.

 Groves (Br.), 315,015, July 4, 1929.

 British T.H. Co. (Br.), 345,116, March 19, 1931.

 Grunberg (Ger.), 525,325, May 22, 1931.

 Kammerhoff shows a rigid terminal socket, mounted on a dry cell battery, for use with flexible prongs. This invention could not possibly serve the purpose, or accomplish the object, which is accomplished by the disclosure here under consideration. As will be pointed out hereinafter, the manufacturers of hearing-aid devices do not equip such devices with flexible prongs, or in any other way undertake to make such devices adaptable to a standard battery. That result, if it can be obtained, must be found in the ingenuity of the maker of a battery so adaptable that it may be used with hearing devices, primarily made for use with a battery produced either by the hearing-aid manufacturer, or one specially constructed for use with such device.

 Watts shows spring socket contacts, mounted in resilient material, permitting a limited relative movement between the contacts, thus insuring good electrical connection with bayonet contacts. This socket is on the end of a connection cord. Nowhere is there found in the Watts patent any disclosure having the purpose or the result of making the connections there disclosed adaptable to more than one type of connection. The sole object sought and the sole result accomplished in making use of the resilient material there employed was to afford better connection.

 Miller shows a plug and socket cable connector with the sockets mounted in soft rubber with a spring around each individual contact. One of the primary objects of the Miller patent is to secure a waterproof connection, and there no object or result, such as is sought and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.