The opinion
SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
The issue here seems to me to be whether the subject matter sought to be patented is obvious under the conditions stated in 35 U.S.C. § 103 . I do not believe the majority opinion decides this issue according to the prescribed statutory tests. Rather, it seems to me the majority opinion is based on the visual similarities between Fig. 1 of the appealed application and Fig. 2 of the British reference patent. Such a comparison seems to me to ignore the requirement of section 103 that the decision as to obviousness must be based on “the subject matter as a whole.”
While purporting to decide that the subject matter as a whole as defined in claim S is obvious, the majority opinion ends its analysis when it finds the “disclosed” holes of applicant’s Fig. 1 embodiment to be arranged along the circumference of a circle concentric with the axis of the terminals as shown in Fig. 2 of the British patent. At best, this is a “picture comparison test” from which it is concluded that the subject matter of claim 3 is obvious.
However, an examination of the British reference patent fails to disclose the concept of equipotential lines or the manner of position in which the connector holes are located in the terminal body. The specification states only that:
It is a particular object of the invention to provide a terminal assembly having coupling units which will allow several wires to be quickly connected to each end of an electrical terminal. * * *
The majority opinion does not point to any teaching in the British reference from which I am able to find that appellant’s invention of an equipotential ground stud is obvious. In fact, nothing is said in the British reference regarding the electrical potential characteristics of the Fig. 2 structure or the particular configuration of holes disclosed therein.
The board, in its decision, found that the holes in Fig. 2 “appear to be arranged in a substantially equipotential line.” It concluded from this fact that “it is not seen how any significant or even a noticeable difference in resistance would be present as argued by the appellant.” Both the board decision and the majority opinion reveal a method of analysis of the prior art reference which I believe improper. Both set out looking for an equipotential line and “find,” in a rather *382 crude figure, something they call a “substantially” equipotential line. The lack of disclosures in the figure is brushed aside with the statement that any differences in resistance would not be “significant” or “noticeable.” Thus I do not believe that the reference has been evaluated properly or that appellant’s arguments as to the technical differences between the devices have been overcome. 1 I therefore do not find any teaching in the British reference, including the embodiment depicted in Fig. 2 of that reference, which would make the subject matter 2 of appellant’s invention obvious. Nor am I convinced that appellant’s in *383 vention would be obvious in considering British in view of the Italian reference. Considering the invention as a whole 3 as defined in claim 3 (and not solely as the illustrative embodiment shown in Fig. 2 of the application) in view of the references of record, I would, therefore, reverse.
In In re Attwood, 354 F.2d 365 , 53 CCPA 365, “we express full agreement with the board’s reasons for then reversing” a rejection based on obviousness. Therein it was possible to combine “pictures” from references to argue the invention defined by the appealed claims was obvious. We stated as follows:
[The Board] could not find either the inventive concept or the result obtained in the references beiore it, notwithstanding Raucati had the framing members with holes and Clayton had the knock-outs in the plane of a metal box wall. Knockouts had then been common practice for a long time yet it was not felt one of ordinary skill in the art would *384 have found it obvious to use them in structural members in the manner and for the purpose found in appellant’s invention. These reasons for reversing the rejection are, to our minds, the important ones.
And in In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238 , 53 CCPA 238, we stated:
The ever present question in cases within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the prior art at the time the invention was made. It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. * * *
I believe that the majority decision is contrary to the above two cases as well as contrary to the fair teachings of the references of record. The “picture” comparison method of determining patentability was ignored by Judge Holtzoff in Hoerr v. Watson, 156 F.Supp. 182 (D.C.1947). It should be ignored in this appeal also.
. The record contains the following arguments by appellant which I find not refuted :
More specifically, many high-gain circuits, such as amplifiers, have one or more points in those circuits connected to the chassis on which they are mounted. However, in view of the fact that even an excellent conductor has some resistance between points on its surface, be it ever so small, the circuit connections to the chassis inherently have some ohmic resistance existing between them. As a result, current circulating between these points produces small potential differences or voltages between them which are then fed back to the circuits wherein these small voltage unbalances are greatly amplified, thereby oftentimes causing erroneous circuit outputs. It is extremely important, therefore, in the use of these high-gain circuits that their ground (chassis) connections be at exactly the same potential. Appellant’s invention is designed to accomplish exactly this result.
The device in British Patent 783,545, on the other hand, cannot produce such a result. * * * the Board stated: “While some of the holes appear to be larger than others, and assuming arguendo that is in fact the case, we point out that when the wires are inserted therein and the free space is filled with solder, the flange will be a solid conductive member. Therefore, it is not seen how any significant or even a noticeable difference in resistance would be present as argued by the Appellant.” It is respectfully submitted that this is a fallacious premise.
Differently-sized holes respectively require different amounts of solder. Consequently, since the coefficient of resistance of solder is different than that of the surrounding flange element and, furthermore, since different quantities of solder are involved, slightly different values of resistance will be introduced and this, in turn, will produce the slight voltage unbalances that Appellant is able to avoid with his device. In addition, if the holes are too large for the • wire, as some of them appear to be in the British device, then the wires would not be centered on the equi-potential line and this, too, would cause a slight voltage unbalance.
In other words, with “free space” between the wires and tbe sides of the holes, some measurable displacement from the equi-potential line will take place in the assembly operation.
>j« s¡s % sj« H*
With respect to the opinion expressed by the Board of Appeals that the apertures (21) in the British Patent appear to be arranged in a “substantially equipotential line”, it is to be pointed out that this is not taught by the British Patent, nor can the spacing of the holes be adequately judged from Figures 1 or 2 therein. It is impossible, therefore, to positively confirm that the holes are, in fact, located along an equipotential locus from the axis of the terminal stem, as is taught by Appellant’s device. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the British patent to warrant the conclusion that this feature is an integral part of the British invention. On the contrary, as previously pointed out, the apertures (21) on the British terminal assembly are of unequal diameters, thereby preculding the establishment of true electrical equi-potentiality.
Furthermore, the British device was never intended to be a low-potential or page 1, lines 69-73, that “ * * * chassis ground termination, as is indicated by the wording of the British specification which clearly states at the terminal assembly 10 shown therein is intended for an electrical device, such as a transformer, a part of the wall of which is shown at 11. The wall is of any suitable insulating material * * demonstrates that the British device was intended as an electrical “tie-point” for use as a convenience of assembly, what is known as a feed-through terminal.
. The subject matter of appellant’s invention is set forth in his application as follows :
Electrical and electronic circuits generally have one or more points in these circuits connected to some common source of reference or ground potential. *383 For this purpose, the above-referred to low potential points are customarily connected to the chassis upon which these circuits are mounted at different points thereon. However, in view of the fact that even an excellent conductor has some resistance between points on its surface, be it ever so small, the circuit connections to the chassis inherently have some ohmic resistance existing between them. As a result, current circulating between these points produces small potential differences or voltages between them which prevent the various points in the circuits from being connected to the same reference potential as intended. These differences of potential or, stated differently, this unbalance, may be amplified by the circuits and, therefore, may oftentimes cause erroneous circuit outputs.
Another technique customarily employed in the electronics arts is to mount a lug on the chassis and then connect all the low potential points in the circuits to this lug. However, although the above-mentioned unbalance is reduced, the use of a lug does not resolve the problem of providing a true reference potential. Furthermore, the use of a lug introduces a wiring problem in that each time the solder on the lug is melted to either connect or disconnect a wire, other wires soldered to the lug are also loosened.
It is, therefore, an object of the present invention to provide a multi-terminal stud that provides the same potential at each terminal connection.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a multi-terminal stud wherein electrical currents do not circulate between different terminal connections.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a multi-terminal stud adapted so that the connection or disconnection of a wire will not affect the bonds between the stud and other wires that may be connected to it.
The present invention overcomes the above and other disadvantages of prior art reference potential connection devices by providing a stud having an equipotential line thereon to which low potential points in circuits may be connected. Multi-connections to the stud are facilitated by means of orifices spaced along the equipotential lino, one circuit connection for each orifice. In particular, the two specific problems mentioned above as being encountered among prior art devices are resolved since, first, the potentials at all connection points vary together and in any identical manner so that a common reference potential is at all times preserved and, second, the connecting or disconnecting of a wire at any orifice does not affect the wire connections at other orifices on the stud.
. The term “equipotential line,” as used in claim 3, is accepted terminology to describe a characteristic of an electrical circuit. It is not a “line” in the literal sense nor does it refer to any other well known geometric figure although it may in a given instance assume the locus of points described by a geometric figure. By definition, an equipotential line is a series of points all of which, in relation to a common point, are equal in electrical potential. When two points are said to be located on an equipotential line, the work necessary to carry a unit positive charge from the one point to the other is zero.
Appellant’s invention consists of a multi-terminal stud for providing a common reference potential for electronic circuits mounted on a chassis. The precise way in which the invention achieves a common reference potential for multiple terminals is to define the location of each terminal along an equipotential line. This is not made obvious in view of the references of record.