User:Bobby Powers

My Patent

Patent Number: 4292795

• Electro-mechanical locomotive bell ringing apparatus for quick and easy replacement of existing pneumatic bell ringing systems

In the summer of 2010, I worked at GE Transportation testing locomotive diesel engines. Many days I found myself firing up the large diesel engines and hearing the bell of the locomotive ring out.

• Patent Description: This patent is for an electro-mechanically operated locomotive bell ringing apparatus which is mounted within a bell and attached to an existing bell striker. A switch on Engineers Console triggers a timer energizing a coil to move the striker against the bell. Found using PatentStorm [1].

Examining the Patent in accordance to Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, A. & P. Tea Co. v Supermarket Corp., and Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

References: Patent 4706037 – Soft Contact Solenoid Contractor (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4706037.html)

The U.S. Supreme Court case of A. & P. Co. v. Supermarket Corp. investigated the validity of a patent when the invention is considered merely a combination of the parts. In this case the supermarket cashier’s counter was considered useful and novel, but because there was nothing actually “inventive” about the counter, there was no merit to the patent. The court argued that an invention which is a combination of parts must amount to more than just the summation of the parts (i.e. 2 + 2 must equal 5, not just 4). The case goes as far as listing all of the undeserved patents that the court had issued with loose standards of “inventiveness”.

In the same manner, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood investigated a patent for a clay doorknob saying that it was invalid. The court argued that nothing about the invention was new. “The knob was not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank was securely fastened therein. Knobs had also been used of clay”. The court ruled that it was a mere substitution of materials.

Under the standards of these previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I believe the patent for Electro-mechanical locomotive bell ringing apparatus would still be valid. Certainly locomotive bells had been used before, and solenoid magnets had been used to move metallic masses. However, this unique combination added value to the invention by eliminating a myriad of functional issues that accompanied standard pneumatic bell ringing systems that were in use that the time. Patent 4706037 for a Soft Contact Solenoid Contractor, which was issued a year earlier, discusses the movement of an armature, but the Electromechanical Bell Ringer adds an “inventive” dimension by using the solenoid to ring a bell, along with all the circuitry and controls that accompany this action.

link titleIn the United Sates Court of Appeals Second Circuit case of Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, the court investigates the validity of a patent for an optical coating method. The court argued that “If an improvement is to obtain the privileged position of a patent more ingenuity must be involved than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art.” Because it was known that the method was practiced by other mechanics in the field, it was not considered an inventive method. Some testified that they did not even think that the method was effective, and that is why they had personally discontinued use of the method.

Under these standards of the courts, it would be more difficult to argue that the Electro-mechanical bell ringer was something that a “mechanic skilled in the art” could not have designed. At the same time though, the need for a new bell ringing system had certainly been present for a long time. If this is the case, then why had someone else not already invented it? Without the appropriately technical background it is difficult to determine a verdict for this case.

Graham v. John Deere : Examination of Non-obviousness

In support of the “non-obviousness”:

In order for Graham to receive his patent, it is necessary that his patent bear “evidence of more ingenuity and skill than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business.” The decision of “non-obviousness” can also only be made upon establishing “the scope and content of prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” The primary concerns in the “non-obvious” nature of Graham’s patent is the the introduction of a hinge-plate bolt and the inversion of the shank to the hinge plate. Within the field, there has been a long felt need to reduce wear on plow shanks and add flexibility in order to deal with rocky soils of certain regions. Plow shanks were prone to breaking. By inverting the shank position in respect to the hinge plate, Graham added more flexibility to the system by permitting the shank to flex about its entire length rather than just the extension beyond the hinge plate. The introduction of a bolt provided for consistent contact with the hinge plate which reduced wear on the shank. Although, both of these introductions seem like minor changes they significantly change the performance of the mechanism. Adding a bolt to a mechanism is a simple alteration. Thus, if the need existed, but this addition had not yet been utilized, it would seem that this addition was not an “obvious” introduction.

Supporting conclusion of invalidity:

Graham claims the the introduction of a hinge-plate bolt and the inversion of the shank to the hinge plate have improved the performance of his previous patent. Although, this claim may hold true, it cannot be shown that the steps taken from the previous art required “more ingenuity and skill than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquianted with the art.” It was known that flexibility in the shank allowed more tolerance in the plow to discourage breaks and wear. The spring mechanism is evidence of this. It would then to a mechanic in the area, be also obvious that are larger length of flexable shank area would be beneficial. The mere inversion of the shank to the hinge plate to provide this design change, would not require any true “inventive” genius. It was also known that wear on the shank was detrimental to the system. Making contact with the hinge plate and shank more consistent by bolting them together would also be in the realm of “ingenuity and skill possessed by an ordinary mechanic”.