In re GEHRES

In re GEHRES. Patent Appeal No. 3342. Court of Customs ánd Patent Appeals. Dec. 3, 1934. Kenneth S. Neal, for appellant. T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. [MAJORITY — BLAND, Associate Judge.] BLAND, Associate Judge. Claims, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11 of appellant’s application for a patent for improved wrist pin bearing construction were rejected by the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office. Claims 3 and 8 were allowed. The Board of Appeals affirmed the action of the Examiner in denying said claims, and from the said decision of the Board appellant has appealed here. Claims 2 and 5 are illustrative and follow: “2. In combination, a piston having opposed wrist pin hubs projecting inwardly from the inner walls of the piston, the inner ends of the pressure sides of said hubs being slightly spaced, the inner ends of the remaining sides of said hubs being spaced a greater distance to afford room for the head of the connecting rod to be interposed there-between, a wrist pin received within said hubs, said wrist pin being cut away within the confines of its bearing surface to provide a seat, and a connecting rod head connected to said scat and interposed between the last mentioned inner ends of said hubs, said connecting rod head terminating at the last mentioned ends of the hubs to leave the space between the first mentioned ends of the hubs free for expansion and contraction. “5. In combination, a generally cylindrical wrist pin cut away within the confines of its bearing surface, to provide an engaging seat elongated in the direction of the length of the wrist pin, a connecting rod-head having a similarly elongated end portion engaging said seat, and bolts passing through said elongated portion of the head and into said seat for securing the rod and wrist pin together.” The references relied upon are: Reavoll, 676,080, June 11,1901; Barbarou, 1,331,555, February 24, 1920; McKeehnie et al., 1,331,-573, February 24, 1920. The application discloses a piston which is provided with opposed hubs for the pin bosses. On the upper sides, called the pressure sides, the hubs are spaced relatively close together and the lower sides of the hubs are spaced relatively far apart. This construetion is for the purpose of affording substantially full bearing area on tbe pressure sides and at the same time allowing tbe bead of a connecting rod to be interposed in said space. A wrist pin is mounted in tbe pin bosses, said pin having a flat seat so as to facilitate tbe fastening of tbe connecting rod to tbe pin. Tbe bead on the connecting rod is fastened to tbe wrist pin by four bolts. A stamped, sheet metal bushing is placed between the wrist pin and tbe pressure portion of said bosses. Tbe bushing is so made that tbe lower flanges on tbe same, which are adjacent t.o tbe flattened portion of tbe wrist pin, bend over tbe seats and are secured in position by bolts which fasten to said bosses. No feature of tbe bushing is involved in tbe appealed claims, certain claims having been allowed which relate to sucfl bushing. Appellant here stresses tbe fact that bis structure, which broadly involves tbe two features — narrow spacing at tbe top and relatively broad spacing at tbe bottom of tbe wrist pin bosses, and tbe means of bolting tbe connecting rod to tbe wrist pin — is especially adaptable in tbe use of Diesel engines where exceedingly high pressure maintains within tbe cylinder on account of tbe fact that ignition of tbe fuel in tbe Diesel engine is caused not by applying electric sparks thereto, but by compressing tbe fuel mixture in tbe cylinder until it reaches so high a temperature as to ignite. It is urged that tbe ordinary wrist pin bearing construction in tbe prior art was not designed to stand tbe strain and pressure in Diesel engines, and that applicant’s device does withstand such strains and serves a new and useful purpose in tbe art involved. It is .not seriously contended that each of tbe features of tbe claims involved is not shown in tbe prior art cited. Appellant.contends that tbe Patent Office tribunals erroneously combined different features of tbe prior art patents in order to find references upon which to reject tbe claims involved, and argues that since bis claims are for a combination of elements, tbe Patent Office tribunals have given him no credit for producing a device by such combination which is an advancement in tbe art. This contention necessitates a brief discussion of tbe prior art cited. Tbe patent to Reavell relates to a piston and wrist pin construction involved in an apparatus for compressing or exhausting elastic fluids, and clearly shows a connecting rod connected to a wrist pin with a flattened portion which' is adapted to receive said connecting rod. Tbe Barbarou patent relates to articulation between a piston and its connecting rod, and discloses a structure where tbe inner ends of the pressure sides of tbe bubs are slightly spaced, and tbe inner ends of tbe remaining sides of tbe bubs are spaced at a greater distance so as to afford room for tbe bead of tbe connecting rod. Tbe patent to McKechnie et al. relates to a piston with tbe connecting rod attached to tbe wrist pin which is flattened on' tbe lower side quite similar to that shown in tbe ■Reavell patent above referred to. Claims 2, 6,10, and 11 were rejected upon Barbarou, which patent shows tbe narrower spacing at tbe top of tbe bosses and tbe wider spacing at tbe bottom, and upon Reavell and McKechnie et al., which show tbe flattened portion of tbe wrist pin for receiving tbe connecting rod. Claim 5 was rejected on tbe combination of McKechnie et al. and Reavell, it 'being tbe view of tbe Board that tbe McKechnie et al. patent disclosed tbe structure of claim 5 except for tbe portion of tbe pin being cut away within tbe confines of tbe bearing surface thereof, and that that feature was old in Reavell. Tbe Board concluded that it did not amount to invention to cut away tbe wrist pin of tbe McKechnie et al. structure in view of tbe prior art cited. Tbe McKechnie et al. patent was also cited by tbe Examiner against claim 11 for that feature of tbe claim which relates to a rod bolted to tbe seat of tbe wrist pin. McKechnie et al. shows tbe use of bolts to fasten tbe rod to tbe wrist pin. We are in agreement with tbe decision of tbe Board of Appeals that appellant’s application contains a disclosure of features which are shown to be old in tbe art, and that these features perform the same function in appellant’s 'device that they performed in tbe prior art, and we think that it is well settled that under such circumstances no invention is ■involved. While it may be true that by reason of choosing the desirable features of tbe prior art and consolidating them as appellant has done produces a better connecting rod and wrist pin assembly than is shown in tbe prior art, it does not necessarily imply invention. It sometimes requires invention to successfully combine old elements into a new article. If a result flows from such combination which is new and useful, and which is not inherent in each of the features assembled, and which is beyond tbe skill of tbe mechanic, tbe issuance of a patent for such a combination may be justified. In re Germantown Trust Co., Executor. 57 F.(2d) 365,19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1140; In re Dann, 47 F.(2d) 356, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1031. Appellant’s application does not present such a case. The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.