# Application of Ellis H. Bryant, Jr > Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · March 7, 1968 · 390 F.2d 1006 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453412 ## Case - **Full name:** Application of Ellis H. BRYANT, Jr. - **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals - **Decided:** March 7, 1968 - **Citations:** 390 F.2d 1006; 55 C.C.P.A. 928 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Worley - **Judges:** Worley, Rich, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453412 ## Opinion text WORLEY, Chief Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of the single claim in appellant’s application 1 for “High Speed Counters” as “unpatentable over Wollar 2 in view of Paschen et al. 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103.” The invention relates to an electromagnetically operated mechanical counter which operates at relatively high speeds, e. g. 200 counts per second. The counter mechanism includes a series of co-axial, digit-bearing wheels and an electromagnetieally-operated advancing mechanism for rotating the first digit wheel in one direction in a step-wise fashion. The advancing mechanism comprises a rachet gear or star wheel, and a pawl which is reciprocated by a solenoid responsive to electrical impulses and by a return spring and which effects step-wise rotation of the star wheel. According to the specification, the attainable reliable counting speeds in such a system are substantially less than those theoretically obtainable from optimization of part and electromagnetic circuit design “because of the bounce or chatter *1007 encountered in the drive mechanism which can cause either extra counts or skipping of counts in an erratic fashion at the upper limit of attainable counting speed.” The specification states: * * * the design speeds of the preferred rugged mechanical counters operated eleetromagnetically are limited and reliable operation is attainable only at about half the required speeds when electromagnetic drives and mechanisms are optimized. X* ■$£ ■X’ if •X’ if In accordance with the invention it has been found that as mechanical counters reach their limiting speeds, considerable chatter and bounce is encountered in ratcheting or advancing mechanisms causing erratic operation from time to time. Yet it is not readily feasible to mechanically design the mechanisms to overcome this limiting factor. According to the present invention it was discovered that by immersing the mechanical counter mechanism in a viscous liquid such as oil, which is also preferred for its lubricating qualities, the bounce and chatter was damped to such an extent that the reliable counter speed could be almost doubled. [Emphasis supplied] ###### The viscosity of the oil is chosen to provide proper damping action dependent upon the masses and speeds of the respective parts of the counter mechanism. * * * Claim 1 reads: 1. A high speed counter having a mechanism operable at a limited top counting speed comprising a series of interconnected digit wheels with visibly readable idicia thereon, each actuated cyclically by a preceding wheel except for the initial digit wheel, means actuating the initial wheel comprising a reciprocally movable pawl mechanism and a star wheel movable in a single direction of rotation bit by bit as the pawl mechanism reciprocates, a hermetically sealed compartment surrounding said counter mechanism with a window displaying said visible in-dicia externally of the compartment, a liquid in the compartment enveloping the pawl mechanism having a selected viscosity to damp out chatter and bounce of the pawl mechanism when operated at counting speeds outside said top counting speed, whereby higher counting speeds are attained and an electromagnetic circuit for reciprocating the pawl at a speed greater than said limiting top counting speed. Recognizing that Wollar shows an electromagnetic counter mechanism con-cededly similar to appellant’s but for the concept of sealing that mechanism in a compartment containing a liquid which damps out chatter and bounce, the examiner turned to Paschen who discloses an odometer mounted in an axle box of a railway car. Paschen’s object is to provide an odometer which “accurately registers” and “is protected to a great extent against shocks when in operation.” To that end, the operating elements of the odometer — a rachet wheel and a pawl-carrying frame, the latter reciprocated by an eccentric disk on the end of the axle and a return spring — are immersed in a lubricating oil reservoir of the axle box. The patent states: * * * [an] advantage of this construction is that the oil acts as a shock-absorbing and damping means for the individual elements of the register. This is as tests have shown highly important for the operation of odometers. * * * In the examiner’s view it would be obvious to operate the Wollar counter in a pool of oil in view of Paschen. He thought it apparent that Pasehen’s counter is capable of higher reliable counting speeds in the oil than in air “because the oil damping process prevents erroneous bounces” of the odometer mechanism. “Certainly,” said the examiner, “the very reason for placing the Paschen et al. odometer in oil was to improve its performance.” The board agreed, and so do we. *1008 Appellant contends that his “simple expedient” of immersing his counter mechanism in oil is unobvious and has attained “an unexpected result,” since * * * it would normally be reasoned that the immersing of a counter into a higher viscosity liquid than air would tend to damp and slow down its counting operation over that attained in the lower viscosity of air rather than to result in this entirely unexpected higher counting speed. Although perhaps consistent with the terminology employed in his claim, 4 the import of appellant’s argument as phrased is, we think, contradicted by his specification. We do not understand appellant’s specification to teach that placing the counter mechanism in oil results in higher counting speed per se. Rather, the specification teaches that reliable counting speeds are increased when the mechanism is immersed in oil — counting speeds more closely approximating the limiting or top counting speed at which it potentially could be driven. The Patent Office did not find that to be unexpected, nor do we. We do not think one of ordinary skill in this art would be unaware of the fact that as the device of Wollar is operated at higher speeds more error-causing “chatter and bounce” would ensue and that that phenomenon could be damped by placing the mechanism in a damping fluid as suggested by Paschen. Just as Paschen’s odometer more “accurately registers” over the range of speeds at which the railway car operates because the oil damps out shocks to the operating mechanism, so appellant’s device counts more reliably or accurately at speeds near the upper limit of its possible operating range of speeds — increases the reliable counting speed as it were. With due regard for appellant’s arguments, we are satisfied the board committed no reversible error in sustaining the rejection. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed. . Serial No. 312,966, filed October 1, 1963. . U.S. Patent 2,998,187, issued August 29, 1961. . U.S. Patent 2,071,654, issued February 23, 1937. . The examiner observed that appellant has employed the phrase “limited top counting speed” rather loosely, stating * * * the final clause of the claim, “at a speed greater than said limiting top speed” is obviously vague and misleading. Moreover there is no basis for this phrase in the specification. Reading the phrase literally, it means that the electromagnetic circuit is capable of reciprocating the pawl at a speed greater than the top counting speed. * * * Assuming appellant does mean that he increases reliable counting speeds, it is not intuitively obvious that one would expect those speeds to be reduced by placing the mechanism in a liquid having a higher viscosity than air. Certainly there is no evidence of record to support such an assertion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453412. Public record. Not legal advice.