# Petition — Piher International Corp. v. CTS Corp.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1659%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1976
- **Citation:** 424 U.S. 978

## Text

i] FEB 2 1876
In THE
MICHAEL RODAK, JR, CLERE

Supreme Court of the Unites States

Octoser Term, A.D. 1975

No. —_42-1092

PIHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
and PIHER SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,

Petitioners,
vs.

CTS CORPORATION,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Ricuarp R. TREXLER
Ratrorp A. BiacksTong, JR.
Otson, TREXLER, WOLTERS,
BusHNeELL & Fosse, Lrp.
141 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Attorneys for Petitioners

—_——————— EE EE ore — — — —

Midwest Law Printing Co., Chicago 60601, Financial 6-3988

ett Bit Pane ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
OPINIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW 2
JURISDICTION .. ciseidtahiniisiieaiaiieaacien 2
QUESTION PRESENTED .. 3
THE STATUTE INVOLVED .. 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4
REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 6
ARGUMENT ..-. 7
II ieisiiceeltai icc ieeiianceiielianneniindieitinnniincianes i)
APPENDICES:

A—Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit ‘ - A-l
B—Order of Court of Appeals denying Petition for
Rehearing B-1

C—Memorandum Opinion of United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, East-
ern Division (Honorable Julius J. Hoffman,

Senior District Judge) C-1
D—United States Patent No. 3,518,604 D-1
E—United States Patent No. 3,237,140 E-1
F—United States Patent No. 3,375,478 F-1

% In THE
LIST OF AUTHORITIES CITED | Supreme Court of the United States
Cases Octosrr Term, A.D. 1975
Graham y. Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) 6
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., United States Supreme Court No.
Docket No. 75-110, Court of Appeals decision report-
ed at 512 F.2d 141 (Sth Cir. 1975) .. 6
PIHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Statute and PIHER SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,
i) 2) 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 Petitioners,

vs.

CTS CORPORATION,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

PIHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and PIHER
SOCIEDAD ANONIMA pray that a Writ of Certiorari issue
to review the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case entitled CTS
Corporation (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. Piher International
Corporation and Piher Sociedad Anonima (Defendants-
Appellants)! Appeal No. 75-1100.

' Hereafter “CTS”; and “Piher”.

ulin

This is a patent infringement action, and the patent
involved in the present Petition is No. 3,518,604 on
“Electrical Component” issued to CTS Corporation on
June 30, 1970, pursuant to an application filed February
12, 1968.

OPINIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Appeals, concerning pat-
ent No. 3,518,604, and others,? was decided September
17, 1975. The decision is unreported, and a copy of the
slip opinion is hereto appended as Appendix A.

The Court denied a Petition for Rehearing by your
Petitioners in an unpublisned order dated January 26,

1976, a copy of which is hereto appended as Appendix
B.

The lower Court decision in the District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, involving
said patent No. 3,518,604, and others,” is published in
184 USPQ, at page 399, and a copy is hereto appended
as Appendix C.

JURISDICTION

J urisdiction of the Court is invoked under [itle 25, US
Code Section 1254 (1).

This Petition is filed within the ninety (90) days’
period permitted under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2101(c),
from the order of the Court of Appeals on Petition for
Rehearing dated January 26, 1976. (Appendix B).

2 Patents No. 2,740,027; No. 3,375,478; and No. 3,670,285.

0 ene ee ee

—3—
QUESTION PRESENTED

This js a patent infringement action, and the question
presented by the present Petition concerns the standard
to be followed in determining the questicn of ob-
viousnéss under 35 USC Section 103.

Specifically, the question may be stated as follows:

1. If a combination of two prior art references is
obvious to accomplish a first result, is that same
COmbination of references rendered non-obvious
because it accomplishes a second result allegedly
not disclosed in the references in question?

THE STATUTE INVOLVED

35 U.S.C. § 103

Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject
matter

_A patent may not be obtained though the inven-
tion is not identically disclosed or described as set
forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter
aS a whoie would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which said subject matter per-
tains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
Manner in which the invention was made.

endine

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

CTS filed its patent infringement action alleging in-
fringement of four United States Letters Patent 2,740,-
027, (027); 3,375,478 ('478); 3,518,604 ('604); and 3,670,-
285 ('285). Upon stipulation, and completion of the
pleadings before the District Court, there remained at
issue, the question of infringement of ‘027, ‘478, and
‘604, and the question of validity as to all four of the
patents, including the question of obviousness over the
prior art in the case of ‘604, and alleged invalidity upon
the ground of “on sale” more than one year before the
patent application was filed in the case of ‘285. The
Trial Court made findings adverse to Piher upon all
issues.

In view of the nominal amounts involved, no appeal
was taken by Piher as to ‘027 and '478; but appeal to the
Court of Appeals was taken as to ‘604 and ‘285 including
the issue of validity upon the points above stated.

On the appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the
Trial Court improperly excluded certain evidence as to
“on sale” in connection with ‘285, and remanded the case
to the District Court for a new trial upon this issue.

As to ‘604, the Court of Appeals held the patent valid
and infringed, and the validity hulding by the Court of
Appeals upon the question of obviousness over the prior
art is the subject of the present Petition to this Court. A
copy of patent No. 2,518,604 ('604) is appended hereto as
Appendix D.

The subject matter of patent ‘604 relates to variable
resistors, sometimes referred to as “potentiometers” or

—§—

“trimmers.” CTS is the owner of two earlier patents, No.
3,237,140 ('140) and No. 3,375,478 ('478) which bear
upon the same subject matter and which have prior art
status as to CTS’ patent ‘604. A copy of 3,237,140 ('140)
is hereto appended as Appendix E, and a copy of 3,-
375,478 ('478) is hereto appended as Appendix F.

The obviousness question presented by the present
Petition involves simply the substitution of the improved
flared bearing 3lc, Fig. 1, of ‘478, for the more conven-
tional or non-flared bearing at the aperture 15, Fig. 2, of
‘140. The Court of Appeals in its decision in effect holds
that such combination is obvious if the purpose is io
provide a “secure relationship” between the parts; but
that the same combination is rendered non-obvious if
there is also involved the additional purpose of “dust ex-
clusion”, because this feature allegedly is not adequately
disclosed in either reference.

Your Petitioners respectfully submit that this holding
by the Court of Appeals presents an anomaly in the law,

in the consideration of the question of obviousness under
35 USC 103.

’ The Patent Office examiner was not informed by CTS of its

patent ‘478. Upon the issue of duty of disclosure, the Court of

Appeals said that it was “surprised and troubled” by the

deliberate failure of CTS to cite its patent ‘478 to the Patent

oe | the prosecution of the ‘604 application. (Appen-
ix

~~

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

In Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) this
Court laid down the standards and procedures to be
followed in the consideration of the question of ob-
viousness under 35 USC 103.

In view of the decision by the Court of Appeals below,
there now arises the question of whether under those
standards and procedures a combination of two refer-
ences may be obvious to achieve one purpose, while the
combination of those same two references is rendered
non-obvious if an additional result or purpose is
achieved, inherent in the combination, but allegedly not
adequately discussed or disclosed in the specifications of
the references in question.

It is believed that this question should be clarified by
this Court, perhaps companion to the question of ob-
viousness under 35 USC Section 103, which is now
before this Court in the Fifth Circuit case of Sakraida v.
Ag Pro, Inc., (U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 75-110;
Court of Appeals decision reported at 512 F.2d 141).

aun

ARGUMENT

The decision by the Court of Appeals below, pertinent
to the question presented by this Petition, appears in the
Court’s decision in Section I, comprising Appendix
pages A-4 and A-5; and the involved structures are not
complex.

Reference patent ‘140 (Appendix E), discloses a dust-
proof trimmer, but utilizes an essentially conventional
non-flared bearing at the aperture 15, Fig. 2, where the
rotatable resistor drive shaft 52 projects through the
apertured closure wall 13 (see patent specification
column 3, lines 10-24 and column 5, lines 10-38).

The reference patent ‘478 discloses an improved flared
type bearing 3lc, Fig. 1, the structure being described
in the ‘478 patent specification, column 4, beginning line
40, as follows:

“Such design assures a tight bearing fit between
the shaft 31 and the bearing or aperture 14b as well
as eliminating longitudinal movement of the shaft.”

Patent ‘478 does not employ a dust-proof housing.

The decision by the Court of Appeals (Appendix pages
A-4 and A-5) recognizes that the structure of ‘604, the
patent in suit, is achieved simply by the substitution of
the flared bearing of ‘478 for the more conventional
bearing of ‘140; and that such combination or substitu-
tion will achieve the dual purpose firstly, of holding the
parts “securely together” while being smoothly
rotatable, and secondly, of “preventing dust or other
foreign matter from entering the compartment.” And
the Court says (Appendix page A-5) that the substitution

=§—

to “maintain a secure relationship” would be obvious.
Specifically the Court says (Appendix page A-5):

“If the flared bearing of ‘604 merely performed

the function of maintaining a secure relationship

among the components during adjustment, Piher’s

argument (of obviousness) would be valid.”
(parenthetical material added)

But the Court then goes on to find that the same com-
bination of references, obvious to achieve the result of a
“secure relationship” is non-obvious because there is ad-
ditionally achieved a “dust excluding function” which
the Court finds is not adequately discussed or disclosed
either in ‘140 or ‘478.

Your Petitioners respectfully submit that this holding
by the Court below presents a complete anomaly upon
the question of obviousness under 35 USC 103. If a com-
bination of references is obvious to achieve a first pur-
pose, then that combination of references is obvious for
any and all purposes which inherently result from any
combination which is made. If a combination of
references is obvious to achieve a first desirable result,
then that same combination cannot be rendered non-
obvious because additional results and benefits may be
inherent or achieved; and so to conclude presents a legal!
anomaly upon the question of obviousness under 35 USC
103.

Placed in the context of the present case, if the com-
bination of ‘140 and ‘478 is obvious to achieve in ‘140 a
more “secure relationship” between the parts, then that
combination cannot be rendered non-obvious by reason
of the fact that the inherent function of “dust exclusion”
is additionally achieved.

=
CONCLUSION

Wherefore, and for the reasons stated, it is respectful-
ly submitted ti:at the decision by the Court of Appeals
below is improper, and presents a legal anomaly upon
the question of obviousness under 35 USC 103 requiring
clarification by this Court, and that the present Petition
be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Ricnarp R. TRrex.er
Ratrorp A. BiacksTone, JR.
$ Otson, TREXLER, WoLTERs,
BusHneit & Fosse, Lro.
141 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Attorneys for Petitioners

APPENDIX

A-l
APPENDIX “A”
: 3n the

Gnited States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 75-1100

CTS Corporation,
Plaintiff-A ppellee,
v.

Pruner INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and

Pines Socrepap ANoNImMA,
Defendants-A ppellants.

~~" from the United States District Court for the
rthern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 72 C 1891
Juutius J. Horrman, Judge

Arcven June 11, 1975 — Decipep DecemBer 17, 1975

Before Cuiark, Associate Justice (Retired)*, Stevens,
Circuit Judge, and Grant, Senior District Judge.**

Stevens, Circuit Judge. Appellants contend that thie
district court erroneously rejected their attacks on the
validity of the ’604' and ’285* patents on variable resistance

* Associate Justice Tom C. Clark of the Supreme Court of the United
States (Retired) is sitting by designation.

**Senior District Judge Robert A. Grant of the Northern District
of Indiana is sitting by designation.

a No. 3,518,604 on “Electrical Component” issued to appellee

of Beaver and Van Benthuysen on June 30, 1970, pursuant

to tion filed February 12, 1968.

?Patent No. 3,670,285 on “Variable Resistance Control With End
Collector” issued to appellee as assignee of English on June 13, 1972,
pursuant to application filed March 16, 1970.

A-2

controls and erroneously found that their “PT-15” trim-
mer infringed the former patent. The ’604 patent discloses
a flared bearing used as a dust excluding seal of an aper-
ture in the housing enclosing the control. The ’285 patent
describes a mechanical assembly which uses a metallic
collector—an essential component of the control—as the
hase of the housing.

The principal issues on ay are (1) whether one of
appellee’s earlier patents (’478)*, which disclosed the use
of a flared bearing to hold the components of the control
together, made the 604 improvement obvious; (2) whether
the failure to cite 478 to the Patent Office during the pro-
cessing of the 604 application breached appellee’s duty of
disclosure; (3) whether reversal of the finding that the

‘604 patent has been infringed is required by either (a) |

the fact that appellants’ PT-15 trimmer (which appar-
ently is similar to appellee’s ’285 device) uses a metal-
lie collector as a base, whereas the device described
in the °604 specifications uses a nonconductor and admit-
tedly would not function with a metal base, or (b) the
fact that the PT-15 trimmer uses a flared bearing to seal
only one of two openings in its housing; (4) whether the
erroneous exclusion of critical evidence frustrated the pre-
sentation of a meritorious “on sale” challenge to the valid-
of the °285 patent;* and (5) whether appellee’s develop-
ment of the ’285 device was so abortive that either (a) it
was not “useful” within the meaning of § 101; or (b)
the patent specifications failed to describe “the best mode”
of carrying out the invention as required by $112;° or

3 Patent No. 5,478 on “Electrical Control And Method of Making
the Same” issued to appellee as of Van Benthuysen and Barden
on March 26, 1968, pursuant to application filed May 11, 1964.

*35 US.C. § 102(b) provides that a person shall be entitled to a
patent unless the invention was “. . . on sale in this country,
than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the
United States... .”

535 USC. 101 provides that one who “invents or discovers any
new and _ a, seen, manufacture, or composition of —_
or any new improvement thereof, obtain
therefor, subject to the conditions and soquivennente of this title”

Datel

A-3

(c) the invention was “abandoned” within the meaning of
§ 102(c).". We shall briefly describe the product, the par-
ties, and the posture of the case, and then discuss the facts
in greater detail in connection with our consideration of
the several issues.

A variable resistor—sometimes called a “potentiometer”
or a “trimmer”—is used to adjust the electrical resistance
of an electronic circuit to a desired level. The volume and
tone controls on a television or radio set are examples of
variable resistors. The essential elements of such a con-
trol include (1) a driver, or shaft, which may be turned
manually or with a tool, such as a screwdriver; (2) a
contactor, which is affixed to, and may be rotated by, the
driver, and which makes electrical contact between the
collector and the resistance element; (3) the collector,
which must be a conductor of electrical current and is
installed in a fixed position; and (4) the resistance ele-
ment, which may be a horseshoe shaped sliver of carbon
affording varying degrees of electrical resistance, depend-
ing upon the location of the contactor which may be swept
from one end of the resistance element to the other by
turning the driver. These elements may be arranged in
a variety of configurations and sizes; in some —
they are enclosed within a dust excluding housing. e
patents in suit relate to the mechanical structure rather
than the electrical technology of the controls.

The parties are competitors in the manufacture and sale
of electrical components for television sets. The appellants
are a Spanish manufacturing corporation’ and its affiliated
American distributor,’ which the district court found to be
the “alter ego” of its parent. Since that finding is not
challenged, we shall refer to the two simply as “Piher.”

* (Continued)
most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set
—_ a, a contemplated by the inventor of carrying

out his

SS OSS 0 ee £8 6 ee Oe ates & o
; Corporation, Illinois corporation with offices
* Piher International an
in Park Ridge, Llinois,

A-4

Appellee (“CTS”), an Indiana corporation,” originally
accused Piher of infringing four of its patents."* Since one
of these has now expired, and since only minimal damages
are recoverable as a result of infringement of the second,
Piher has not appealed from the holding that those two
patents were valid and infringed. Moreover, by stipula-
tion the parties withdrew che question whether Pihcr’s
PT-15 trimmer infringes the ’285 patent, as well as the
question of priority of invention of what we infer to be
essentially the same disclosure in the CTS ’285 patent
and in Piher’s Spanish patent describing the PT-15 trim-
mer; that priority issue is the subject of an interference
proceeding pending in the Patent Office. Specific attacks
on the validity of the ’285 patent were, however, raised
by Piher’s counterclaim and decided by the district court.

he issues on appeal, therefore, involve the validity of
604 and ’285 a infringement of 604. We turn to those
issues.

I.

The specifications in the 604 patent describe a variable
resistor which is completely enclosed in a tiny boxlike
plastic housing containing one round opening through
which a plastic driver or shaft projects. That projection
of the shaft is in the form of a barrel which includes a
flared bearing extending outwardly from the periphery
of the opening. The bearing fits against the surface of the
housing with sufficient firmness to hold the components of
the device securely together and yet be smoothly rotatable;
it also performs the function of preventing dust or other
foreign matter from entering the component.

Piher argues that the ’604 improvement was obvious
because (a) with cone exception, the general arrangement
of its components within a dust excluding housing was
disclosed by Barden-’140," and (b) that one exception,
namely the flared bearing, was disclosed by appellee’s

10CTS Corporation has its principal place of business in Elkhart,

The '604, ‘285, and ‘478 patents identified in notes 1, 2, and 3, and
an earlier patent, No. 2,740,027, which has since expired.
12 Patent No. 3,237,140 on “Variable Resistance Control” issued on

Feb 1966, to CTS of Barden and
to — & filed on May 20, 1883, ™ —

A-5

‘$78 patent. We agree with Piher’s premises but not with
its conclusion.

In Barden-’140 the sealing function was performed by
a thrust washer encircling the driver just inside the open-
ing in the housing. Both the ‘478 patent and the ’604
patent describe unsatisfactory characteristics of such a
washer and disclose a construction which substitutes a
flared bearing—i.e., an enlargement of a portion of the
driver—for the washer. That substitution having been dis-
closed by ’478, Piher argues that the same substitution
disclosed in °604 must surely be classified as obvious.

_ If the flared bearing in ’604 merely performed the fune-
tion of maintaining a secure relationship among the com-
ponents during adjustment, Piher’s argument would be
valid. But in S604 the flared bearing is designed to per-
form the additional dust excluding function, a function
net even arguably performed by its antecedent in °478."
Indeed, since the ’478 device is not enclosed in a housing,
that patent does not concern itself with the use of any
sealing member, and therefore neither implicitly nor ex-
plcity suggests that the enlarged portion of the shaft may
used to perform a sealing function.

Although each of the elements of the 604 combination
was disclosed by either Barden-’140 or by the ‘478 patent,
the fact that the flared bearing would successfully perform
& sealing function was disclosed by neither. According to
expert testimony which the trial judge credited, that fact
was not obvious to persons skilled in the art when the
invention was made. Since the sealing function of the
bearing in the 604 device was of critical importance in the
Examiner’s decision to allow the claims,"* and since his

as am “enlarged ” of the shaft. (See column 4, lines 34-38; it is
element 3le in 1 and 3.)
4*Claim 1 of which reads as follows was allowed only after
an amendment a at
re EK pharality of walle, Bane cloning. the
a w a
forming a thereof, an aperture in one of walls, a driver

A-6

decision is presumptively correct, the nonobviousness of
that application of a flared bearing in a variable resistance
control justifies the district court’s conclusion that the
concept was patentable.

II.

As we have already pointed out, the flared bearing in
604 performed both a structural function and a sealing
function. If only the former were involved, CTS clearly
would have been obligated to call the Patent Examiner’s
aitention to “478. Indeed, in view of the discussion of the
structural importance of the flared bearing in ’604, we are
somewhat surprised and troubled by the failure even to
cite 478 during the prosecution of the '604 application.
Nevertheless, we accept appellee’s argument that since
178 described a component which was not enclosed in @
housing, and therefore had no relevance to the function
of sealing an opening in a housing, prior art which dis-
closed the use of comparable closures to seal openings in
other enclosed devices was more pertinent than °478."°

That conclusion does not necessarily lead to the further
conclusion that the failure to cite 478 did not violate the
applicant’s duty of disclosure. We must assume that the
applicant deliberately decided not to call the Examiner’s
altention to "478, since it was one of its own patents, cf.
Armour & Company v. Swift € Company, 466 F.2d 767,
777-779 (7th Cir. 1972), and we are unwilling to assume
that the Examiner was familiar with it, id. at 779. Not-
withstanding these assumptions, the patentee is correct in
emphasizing the improbability that a patent on an unen-
closed control would affect the Examiner’s evaluation of
a means for effectively sealing the opening in a housing
during adjustment of the control. We therefore conclude

1¢ (Continued) on
with a portion. of the securing the driver to housing,
portion the including extending
FF ~Ks- a te & 4

Baty - FIL repeatedly em-
the specifications. See, eg, Col. 1 lines 17, 44-56, 69-70;
I, lines 12-15, 32-35.
SCTS cited Patent No. 3,215,303 on “Closure for in the
Walls of Electrical Outlet Boxes and the Like” (see column
2, lines 59-69) and Patent No. 3,099,057 on “Retaining ” (see
especially column 4, lines 12-19).

ee ae eee

A-7

that it was a permissible exercise of judgment for CTS
to omit the citation of the 478 patent during the process-
ing of the ’604 application.

Ii.

Our reasons for affirming the district court’s infringe-
ment finding may be briefly stated.

In the device disclosed in the ’604 specifications, and
in the components actually marketed by CTS, the base of
the housing is made of plastic and has the resistance ele-
ment affixed to it. In contrast, in Piher’s PT-15 trimmer,
the metal collector also serves as the base of the housing.
Unquestionably, if a metal base were used in the CT
device, it would not function. There is, therefore, a rather
dramatic difference between the two devices.

The question of infringement, however, is answered by
comparing the accused device with the claims of the —
not with any particular embodiment—even the prefer
embodiment—of the invention.” The claims in the ’604
patent do not require that the base of the housing be a
nonconductor. Despite the different arrangement of the
elements of the Piher trimmer, each of the elements de-
scribed in the 604 claims may be found therein. The dis-
trict court so found, and that finding is supported by the
testimony of plaintiff’s expert. Most importantly, the ar-
rangement of the base of the housing, the collector, and
the resistance element is really not relevant to the ques-
tion whether the accused device uses a flared bearing on
a driver to perform a sealing function. The critical ele-
ment of the invention is found in Piher’s trimmer.

Piher’s second attack on the infringement finding was
first advanced in its reply brief in this court. Piher points
out that the shaft in the PT-15 trimmer protrudes through
an opening in the bottom as well as through a second

A-8

opening in the top of its housing, and that the flared bear-
ing seals only one of the two holes.’ It would seem to
follow that the housing was not designed to exelude dust.
In contrast, the ‘604 device has only one opening in its
housing and the ‘604 claims refer to “an aperture in one
of the walls” and describe the location of the flared bear-
ing with reference to the periphery of “the aperture.”

It is not the fact that the Piher device has two holes
rather than only one that casts donbt on the infringement
finding; for surely if both holes were sealed with flared
bearings, there would be infringement. Rather, it is the
fact that there appears to be no seal at all over one of
the holes that raises the question whether Piher’s housing
is intended to exclude dust. But this question was unequiv-
ovally answered in the trial court when Piher’s counsel
acknowledged that Piher had made no attempt to prove
that the Piher trimmer does not have a dust excluding
housing." Thus, we must assume that the second opening is
effectively sealed against dust by a noninfringing means—
perhaps merely a close adjustment between the driver and
the aperture. That assumption, however, does not under-
mine the sufficiency of the finding that the flared bearing,
when it does perform a sealing function, infringes the "604
patent.

We conclude that the record adequately supports the
finding of infringement.

IV.

The fourth and fifth issues relate to the validity of the
"285 patent. That patent describes a control which differs
from the prior art in two important respects. The metal
collector serves as the base of the housing, thereby reduc-
ing the number of parts,"® and the contactor is pinched

? Actually, in the trial court Piher’s theory of noninfringement
a to have been that its flared bearing did not ev
the holes. The district court rejected that theory and
understand appellants to pursue it on appeal.
18See Tr. 2346-2347. This position in the trial court was apparently
compelled by a representation made by Piher to the Tariff Commission
with respect to the dust excluding character of its product.
19“Another object of the present invention is to provide a variable
resistance control utilizing a minimum number of parts by using
Ly ow as a cover for the housing.” Col. 1, lines 73-75; column

A-9

between the collector and the resistance element which are
in parallel planes, thereby maintaining a more constant
sressure between those two elements than when the spring-
ike contactor is employed between the two elements ar-
ranged concentrically in the same plane.*® Both of these
functions are also found in Piher’s PT-15 trimmer.” As
already noted, there is an interference proceeding pend-
ing in the Patent Office to decide the question of priority
of invention.

CTS may have been the first to experiment with the ’285
construction, but Piher appears to have been the first to
exploit it commercially.

In 1967, CTS commenced a “low cost 450” project which
eventually resulted in the ’285 patent. After rudimentary
testing of the handmade model, detailed drawings of the
device shown in the °285 patent were prepared, about
$20,000 was invested in the acquisition of temporary pro-

-

20“Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a variable
mC wR ty fn RET, Qh
element and the collector to thereby maintain contact

a on the resistance element and collector.” umn 2, lines
Both of the features mentioned in the text are identified in claim 1 of

and 13, 1968, for ——, ae
testimony in the record,, strongly indicates that essential features
were embodied in Piher’s from

A-10

duction tools, and a number of prototypes were assembled.
These samples were tested in May of 1968. Although a
defect was found in the samples, CTS determined that the
defect was easily correctable and that the samples were
commercially satisfactory. There is also testimony that
other samples tested in January of 1969 were found to
he fully operable. On the basis of that evidence, the dis-
trict court found that the invention had been reduced to
practice in May, 1968, and again in January, 1969. The
"285 patent application was filed on March 16, 1970, and
the patent issued in 1972. CTS has not yet marketed its
“low cost 450” control, but one of its witnesses testified
that it plans to do so in the future.

Piher filed a Spanish application on its PT-15 trimmer
in July of 1968. In the fall of that year, the witness
Adams, who was the manager of International Materials
for Motorola, visited Piher’s facilities in Barcelona and
was shown prototypes of the new trimmer. Toward the
end of the year he received samples froin Piher and placed
an order for a production trial run in January of 1969.
A portion of that order was shipped from Barcelona on
March 3, 1969, and was delivered to Motorola in April.

Piher’s principal attack on the validity of the ’285 patent
is based on evidence relating to this shipment which left
Barcelona more than a year before the. date of the appli-
cation for the patent but did not arrive in the United
States until after the critical date. Some of this evidence
was admitted and some is in the record as part of Piher’s
several offers of proof which the trial judge rejected.
Before discussing the specifics of that evidence it is impor-
tant to identify the material issues.

The challenge rests on §102(b) which defines the so-
called “on sale” defense. The statute speaks in terms of
“the invention” being on sale in the United States more
than one year prior to the application date.** It might more

"ee of § 102(b) reads as follows:
“A. person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

“(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale
in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the
application for patent in the Uni States, or... .”

A-11

recisely have referred to a device embodying or disclos-
ing the invention. In any event, the defense is most fre-
quently asserted on the beste of evidence that the paten-
tee’s own product was on sale more than a year before the
patent application was filed.** The statutory purpose in
such cases is to make sure that the inventor may not extend
the period of patent protection for the commercial exploi-
tation of his monopoly beyond the statutory term.”

But the defense may also be predicated on evidence that
the invention was disclosed in a product sold’ by someone
other than the Pe me more than a year before the filin
date. Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram 15) Corp., ...... F.2
pues , No. 74-2024 (7th Cir., Oct. 20, 1975). In such cases,
the statutory purpose is to preclude the award of a patent
to a person who is not actually the inventor; proof that
a product was on sale in the United States more than a
year before the application date conclusively places that
product in the 3~ 4! of prior art of which the inventor
is presumed to have had knowledge. See Judge Duffy’s
opinion in Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Solo Cup Co., Inc.,

1 F.2d 265, 270-271 (7th Cir. 1972). The “on sale” de-
fense in this case* in effect raises the question whether
Piher’s PT-15 trimmer must be regarded as prior art be-
cause it was on sale before the critical date of March 16,
1969.

We first put to one side an argument that CTS repeat-
edly asserted in the district court and which may have
provided an erroneous predicate for some of the trial
judge’s evidentiary rulings. CTS contended that Piher
was required to prove a completed sale in the United

23 See, e.g., Corp. v. General Time C 397 F.2d 431

ge =. ); Mfg. Co. v. Phenix Mfg. Co., F.2d 314 (7th
1972) ; Industries, Inc. v. E. I. DuPont emours and .

489 F.2d 1359 (7th Cir. 1973); The Red Cross Mfg. Corp. v. Toro Sales

Co., . F.2d ., No. 73-1900 (7th Cir.

24 “The underlying the ‘on sale’ bar is to an inventor
from back secrets of his invention public

ast anusie @ ‘tcheas” tn Oe is
amumy sae ty Ce Cena, © See copys © Nibw Ge
practice of referring to it as a .

A-12

States prior to the critical date. Admittedly, Piher proved
no such sale. But if it was then offering to prospective
purchasers in the United States a product which (a) em-
bodied the ’285 invention and (b) was complete in the sense
that it represented a reduction of the invention to practice,
the invention was on sale within the meaning of the statute
and the ’285 patent is invalid.**

There is substantial evidence in the record supporting
the conclusion that Piher’s PT-15 trimmer disclosed the
essential elements claimed in the ‘285 patent. Piher’s trim-
mer was described in detail by the expert who ex-
plained why it infringed the ’604 patent; his testimony
and the exhibits he prepared clearly disclosed the use of
a metal collector as a base for the housing, and also the
contactor pinched between the collector and the resistance
element in separate parallel planes. Moreover, in its origi-
nal complaint, CTS alleged that the PT-15 trimmer in-
fringed the ’285 patent.

CTS points out, however, that the fact that the invention
was disclosed in Piher’s trimmer in 1972 when the suit
was filed does not necessarily establish the fact that it
was embodied in any device which was on sale prior to
March 16, 1962. For there is evidence in the record that
the trimmer has been modified from time to time, and
Piher had the burden of proving that it reduced the con-
cept to practice before the critical date. See Dart indus-
tries, Inc. y. E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., 489 F.2d
1359, 1364 (7th Cir. 1973). Thus, the character of the
devices shipped by Piher on March 3, 1969, was of critical
importance.

Adams testified that after those devices were delivered
to Motorola in April of 1969, they were-turned over to
junar Klass for evaluation. Klass testified that he con-
ducted a series of tests in April, May and June of 1969.
CTS seems to have persuaded the trial judge that evidence
regarding these tests was irrelevant because the product
did not arrive in the United States until after the critical
date.*” CTS convinced the trial judge that a copy of the

26 See cases cited in n. 23, supra.

77 “MR. WYSS: I object to the so-called offer of for a
number of reasons. of this device,

A-13

Motorola purchase order issued on January 22, 1969, re-
lating to the March shipment was inadmissible because it
did not constitute “the best evidence” of what Motorola had
ordered, and its relevance was not manifest from the face
of the document. CTS also persuaded the court to exclude
testimony by K'ass, who had been responsible for Motor-
ola’s testing of the Piher device, in which Klass described
the essential features of that device.** The court also sus-
tained objections to the admissibility of one of the devices
which the witness identified as having been tested in 1969
on the ground that it had not been in the personal custody
of the witness for about a year, but rather had been in
the custody of Motorola’s patent department, and there
was no absolute assurance that the sieved exhibit was the
one he had tested. The arguments over the admissibility
of these exhibits and this testimony were extensive and
we are not entirely sure that we understand the basis for
the various restrictive rulings made by the trial judge. We
have no doubt, however, that the purchase order was rele-
vant and that the fact that it was a carbon rather than

27 (Continued)
or about April 11, 1969, so it is much too late for anything in
connection with this lawsuit and is under the provisions

MR. ROHRBACK: (C).
THE COURT: I sustain the objection of the plaintiff to the
offer of proof made by the defendant in connection with the offer
of Defendant’s Exhibit 48 for identification.” (Tr. 1602-1603).
28 During the offer of proof, the witness disassembled the exhibit
while he was on the witness stand and identified the collector as a
part of the base and the contactor’s location pinched between the
resistance element and the collector. The testimony was in part:
“Q Would you tell us what is inside Defendant’s Exhibit 48
for identification?
A Inside we see the contactor, which is mounted on the plastic
rotor. I will remove that, with the rotor, and we also
see the resistive element th the two terminals attached to

A The

Q Defendant’s Exhibit 48 for identification.

A The contactor is positioned on top of the rotor and is between
the resistance element and the collector.” (Tr. 1601-1602)

A-14

a ribbon copy did not justify its exclusion.” Moreover, the
lengthy testimony of the witness Klass, which we have
studied with care, contains sufficient assurance that the
offered exhibit was one of the devices ordered in January
and received in April to have justified its admissibility.”

ri eg py Sy A, 5 HH
and 1004 of the new Federal Rules of Evidence. Since the exclud
copy of the purchase order was a duplicate, its admissibility was
covered by Rule 1003, which provides:

“A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original
unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity
of the o or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair
to admit duplicate in lieu of the original.”

A “duplicate” is in Rule 1001(a) (4) as:

Motorola employee, Adams, was on the stand and in the offer of
proof t that the order was made by a Mr. Pinter under Adams’
direction. Adams also testified as to when the order arrived, what
devices were ordered (Motorola part numbers appear on the order
rather than Piher numbers), and when he had seen the Piher
devices which are the subject of the order. Although there is no direct
testimony describing the document as a “carbon copy,” in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, we draw this inference from the

of the document which was offered for examination in light of the
testimony of the witnesses from Motorola. CTS, however, on remand,
retains the right to question the document’s authenticity.

30“By Mr. Jones:
Q Mr. Klass, I hand you Defendant’s Exhibit 48 and ask you
ae yy S from its . a wanes Se the exterior.
t a type — ns housing potentiometer,
has our production part number on it, has our test lab number

Q Can you tell us what parts are from the exterior?
A The parts visible from the exterior is the molded plastic
body, the collector, which is sealed with the body, has a plastic
rotor and has two terminals.

6S Sao ag Ces yew ated, . hem, oo wee
or not that is same number 4-PT trimmer that was tested
in or about April of 1969 and reported on in Defendant’s Exhibit

47 for identification?

A-15

As CTS argues, the reco. 1 does not entirely foreclose the
remote possibility that this particular device was mis-
labeled, or confused with another device when it was in
the custody of Motorola’s patent department; such a possi-
bility affects the probative value of the exhibit, but in
view of the positive character of the witness’s testimony
that it was one of the devices which had been tested in
1969, and that it was one that had been received pursuant
to the January order, it should have been admitted.
Surely, in a case tried to the court without a jury, discre-
tion in such evidentiary rulings should be exercised in
favor of admissibility, particularly when the record is
more apt to be encumbered by extensive argument over
issues of admissibility than by the evidence itself.”

If the physical exhibit identified by Klass had been
admitted, and if the trial court had accepted his oral testi-
mony presented in an offer of proof, the evidence would
have been sufficient to support findings of fact establishing
Piher’s “on sale” defense. For that evidence tended to
pee that the device which Motorola received in the

4]
i
if
Lt
;
1
Gy

F

ae
ie
!
i

d
r

i:
at
i
i
ie |
i
if
i

|

A-16

Piher argues that we should therefore hold the °’285
patent invalid. Such a holding, however, would require
us to make the requisite findings of fact in the first in-
stance and to conclude that Piher has met its burden with
clear and convincing evidence. As we have indicated, if
the proffered testimony is credited, it appears that Piher
will prevail. But the question of credibility and the inter-
pretation of the exhibits are matters that must be decided
in the first instance by a trial judge. We therefore remand
for a new trial of all issues raised by Piher’s on sale
challenge to the validity of the ’285 patent.

V.

As already noted, CTS has never marketed its “low
cost 450” control commercially. Moreover, there were
defects, albeit correctable, in the prototypes which CTS
tested. Piher therefore argues that the invention was not
useful, that the best mode of carrying it out was not
described in the ’285 patent specifications, and that the
invention was abandoned. The trial judge rejected each
of these contentions and we cannot say that his findings
are clearly erroneous.

The fact that there was a defect in the prototypes
surely does not demonstrate that the invention was not
useful. Indeed, since the basic features of the invention
appear to be embodied in Piher’s PT-15 trimmer—as may
fairly be inferred from Piher’s on sale defense and CTS’
original charge that the PT-15 infringes the ’285 patent—
and since Piher’s trimmer is evidently a commercial suc-
cess, it seems logical to infer that the subject matter of the
invention is useful within the meaning of § 102.

Similarly, even if the CTS prototypes are not the best
possible embodiment of the invention, we find nothing in
the record to support the argument that the inventors con-
templated a better mode than that disclosed in the speci-
fications. Section 112 merely requires that the patent
disclose “the best mode contemplated by the inventor of
carrying out his invention.”

Finally, the fact that CTS promptly filed its patent
application forecloses the contention that the invention
was abandoned within the meaning of § 102(c). There are,

A-17

of course, cases in which the character of the commercial
exploitation of an invention will be relevant to the issue
of apm i cf. Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf
COrp., ...000. i , No. 74-2024 at 6 oy Cir., Oct. 20,
1975), but if the —— is promptly filed and dili-
- y prosecuted, the decision to postpone commercial
evelopment does not constitute abandonment.

VI.

The district court refused to award costs to CTS, even
though it prevailed on all issues decided by the district
court. CTS has therefore filed a cross appeal, relying
heavily on our recent decision in Pogiel Bros., Inc. v.
Schick Electric, Inc., 516 F.2d 772 (1975). In view of our
remand for a new trial of the on sale defense, we believe
that the question of what costs, if any, CTS should recover
can await the conclusion of the proceedings in the trial
court.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part
and reversed in part.

Clerk of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

B-1

APPENDIX “B”

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 26, 1976

BEFORE

Hon. Tom C. CLARK, Associate Justice*
Hon. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Circuit Justice**
Hon. ROBERT A. GRANT, SR. District J eee

No. 75-1100
CTS CORPORATION, a corporation,

Plaintiff-A ppellee,
v.

PIHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation; and
PIHER SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, a corporation,

Defendants-A ppellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division — No. 72 C 1891

On consideration of the defendants-appellants’ petition
for rehearing filed in the above-entitled cause,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants-appellants’ petition
for rehearing in the above-entitled appeal be, and the
same is hereby, DENIED.

* _ Associate Justice Tom C. Clark of the Supreme Court of
the United States (Retired) is sitting by designation.

** Mr. Justice Stevens participated initially as Circuit
Judge, and on and after December 19, 1975 as Circuit Justice.
*** Senior District Judge Robert A. Grant of the Northern
District of Indiana is sitting by designation.

C-1
APPENDIX “C”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CTS CORPORATION, a corporation,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

PIHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation, and
PIHER SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, a corporation,

Defendants.
- No. 72 C 1891
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

JULIUS J. HOFFMAN, Senior District Judge. This is an
action for patent infringement with counterclaims of in-
validity and non-infringement. Original jurisdiction of

tent cases is conferred on the District Courts by 28

S.C. § 1338(a). Venue is properly laid in this district
under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The plaintiff, CTS Corpora-
tion, is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of
business at Elkhart, Indiana. Defendant, Piher Inter-
national Corporation (PIC or Piher), an !linois corpora-
tion, has a regular and established place of business in
Park Ridge, Illinois. The second named defendant, Piher
Sociedad Anonima, (PSA) is a Spanish corporation.

Originally, a alleged infringement of four
United States Letters Patent, 2,740,027 ('027), 3,375,478
(478), 3,518,604 ('604) and 3,670,285 ('285). After
answer, stipulation, trial and amended complaint and
answer, respectively, infringement of the ‘027, ‘478, and
‘604 patents remained at issue, together with

C-2

counterclaims denying validity and infringement of the
‘027 and ‘604 patents, infringement of the ‘478 patent,
and validity of the ‘285 patent. Additionally, to permit
joinder of PSA as a party defendant, plaintiff alleged
that Piher was the “alter ego” of the Spanish corpora-
tion, PSA. The prayer is for an accounting for damages,
including costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.

I. Piher Sociedad Anonima (PSA)

Plaintiff alleges that PSA is the “alter ego” of Piher
and therefore properly joined as a defendant. Facts
relating to this issue must be viewed in their entirety,
and if the appearance of PIC’s autonomy is merely
superficial, PSA is properly before this court. Frazier v.
Alabama Motor Club, Inc., 349 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1965).
See also S.O.S. v. Bolta, 117 F.Supp. 59 (N.D. Ill. 1953).
The network of interrelationships between Piher and its
Spanish parent is ample foundation for the conclusion
that Piher was autonomous in form only. The facts show
joint ownership, interlocking officers and directors,
employee confusion as to the source of compensation,
and customer treatment of the corporations as identical.

The wholly-owned subsidiary of PSA, Piher, was
organized, by its parent, as an Illinois corporation on
July 11, 1968 to serve as a marketing organization in the
United States. Sales by Piher were restricted to PSA
products. PSA designated Piher’s office as its own on in-
voices and business correspondence. Two brothers, Juan
Luis Heredero and Jose Antonio Heredero, own the sub-
stantial portion of both corporations. One brother is a
director of PSA and an officer of Piher, while the other
has been PSA’s chairman of the board at the same time
he was vice-president of Piher.

Other personnel serve in interrelated capacities.
Piher’s president, Garcia Nietro, is PSA’s export
manager, as was his predecessor Ricardo Balil. During
their respective terms as president of Piher, Nietro and
Bali! resided in Spain. The managing director of Piher
served as the PSA managing director for the United

C-3

States. Customers apparently dealt with officers of
Piher not in their gy! as officers of Piher, but as
representatives of Piher employees were unsure
whether their compensation came from Piher or PSA.
The evidence shows that one company sometimes paid
obligations of the other. For example, PSA paid the ex-
penses of Balil to travel to the United States to testify on
deposition in this suit. Viewing these facts in their en-
tirety, the court must find that Piher and its parent are,
for jurisdictional purposes in this action, the same.

II. Patent No. 3,375,478 ('478)

United States Letters Patent No. 3,375,478 issued in
the names of John Van Benthuysen and Wayne A.
Barden on March 26, 1968. Plaintiff holds all rights in
this patent for variable resistor controls. Because of the
small size of these devices, the plaintiff marked the
numbers of the ‘478 patent either on containers for the
resistors or on inserts placed in the containers.

28 U.S.C. § 271 defines an infringer as any one who,
without authority, makes, uses or sells any patented in-
vention within the United States during the term of the
patent. The “claims measure the invention.” Continental
Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405
(1908). The general rule is that if the accused device
falls clearly within the claim, infringement is made out.
7 Deller’s Walker on Patents § 511. Graver Tank Co. v.
Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950). The plain-
tiff contends that the accused PAB 15 devices sold by
defendants in the United States infringe claims 1, 3, 4
7, 8, and 10 of the ‘478 patent.

Defendants’ Model PAB 15 controls reproduce almost
exactly two of plaintiffs CTS Model 201 Series controls.
Plaintiffs expert demonstrated that the elements of
claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10 of the ‘478 patent correspond
in term and substance to the elements of each of the
several forms of defendants’ Model PAB 15 controls.
Each element of the two forms of defendants’ Model
PAB 15 performs the same function in the same manner

C-4

as the corresponding element in each of claims 1, 2, 3, 7,
8, and 10 of the ‘478 patent.

While defendants did not refute this testimony es-
tablishing the similarity between plaintiffs claims and
the elements of defendants’ PAB 15 controls, they did
argue that no infringing act occurred in the United
a after the ‘478 patent was issued on March 18,

Prior to the issue of the patent, PSA obtained from
Motorola Corporation samples of plaintiff's Model 201
Series variable resistors. From these samples, it pro-
duced the PAB 15 controls. Defendants sold ap-
proximately 200,000 of tne PAB 15’s to Motorola Cor-
poration, who placed its last order with PSA March 8,
1968, ten days before the patent issued.

The majority were then delivered to Motorola, in the
United States, in or after mid-April of 1968, after defen-
dants had been notified of the ‘478 patent and their in-
fringement thereof. Sales activities continued in the
United States until the summer of 1969. Motorola subse-
quently returned most, if not all, of the devices and was
reimbursed by a check drawn by Piher. Although the
actual damages may therefore be slight, the court finds

ea plaintiff has proved infringement under 35 U.S.C.
71.

III. Patent No. 2,740,027 ('027)

CTS holds all rights in United States Letters Patent
No. 2,740,027 ('027) issued in the names of Wilbert H.
Budd, Robert A. Stackhouse and Herbert L. Slough on
March 27, 1956. The patent has three basic com-
ponents: a variable resistor control, trimmer poten-
tiometer, and metal encased coil. It allows temporary
mounting of the components in proper position until
they are permanently soldered into a circuit panel.

Plaintiff marked the numbers of the ‘027 patent either
on containers or on inserts included with the devices.

C-5

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ PT 15 devices in-
fringe claim 5 of the ‘027 patent. The questions
presented are the infringement of claim 5 and the
validity of the ‘027 patent, the validity issue having been
raised via counterclaim for declaratory relief.

A. Infringement

As noted earlier, if the accused device falls clearly
within the claim, infringement is made out. Graver
Tank Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950).
When the accused device achieves substantially the same
result in sut- tantially the same way as the patented
device, the devices are the same in the eyes of patent
law. King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Tastee Freeze In-
dustries, Inc., 357 F.2d 875, 880 (7th Cir. 1966) Graver,
supra, 339 U.S. at 608, 609. Plaintiff's expert testified
that all elements of claim 5! of the ‘027 patent read in
term and substance upon corresponding elements of

1 Subclassified according to its elements, claim 5 reads:

“In a circuit component for radio and television sets hav-
ing a rotatable control shaft:

1] supporting means for the component fixed with

wy oon - t thereto and having panel engaging abutments
with surfaces thereon lying in a common plane spac-
ed from the control shaft but parallel to its axis, said
abutments being adapted to seat upon a panel and
thereby position the control shaft of the component at
a definite distance from the panel;

[2] terminals for the component projecting therefrom
substantially perpendicularly to and beyond said
plane of the panel engaging surfaces of said
abutments whereby said terminals are adapted to
enter holes in a panel upon which the abutments seat;
and

[3] snap-in ~~ on the supporting means projecting
therefrom beyond the plane of the panel engaging
surfaces of the abutments to have detent like engage-
ment in holes in a panel upon which the abutments
seat, and thereby coact with said abutments to hold
the component on the panel with its control shaft and

terminals properly positioned with respect to the pan-

el.”

C-6

defendants’ PT 15 LB. As will become apparent, cor-

responding elements perform the same function(s) in the
same way.

The unique contribution of ‘027 is an improved struc-
ture for mounting components on a printed circuit board
or panel. It permits temporary mounting, in proper posi-
tion, until the control can be permanently soldered. The
mounting structure on defendants’ Model PT 15 LB con-
trol achieves the same results with essentially the same
structure. As in ‘027, the control shaft on Model PT 15
LB is adapted for positioning with its axis parallel to a
printed circuit panel. Also, the Model PT 15 LB has
“supporting means” with panel engaging abutments for
accurately positioning the control and limiting the
penetration of the terminals. It has “snap-in” fingers to
provide detent like engagement with the panel.

In the patented structure, the snap-in fingers, formed
on the supporting means, also serve as terminals
providing connection to the ground conductor portion of
the printed circuit panel. In the Model PT 15 LB, the
snap-in fingers are formed on the ends of the terminals,
one of which is normally a ground terminal joined to a
ground conductor on the printed circuit panel. The
difference between the devices is that on defendants’ PT
15 LB the snap-in fingers are formed directly on each
terminal of the variable resistor control, whereas in the
patented structure, the snap-in fingers are formed on
the supporting means. Defendants’ device combines the
snap-in fingers and terminals, eliminating the need for
the supporting legs found on plaintiff's device. This
difference is not legally significant. The accused device
achieves substantially the same result in substantially
the same way as the patented device. King-Seeley Ther-
mos Co., supra. More narrowly put, infringement is not
avoided by combining functions into one part where
separate parts in the patented device performed the
functions now combined. Zysset v. Popeil Brothers, Inc.,
276 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1960). Even acknowledging the
difference, claim 5 reads in term and substance upon
defendants’ structure. For example, the snap-in fingers

enemas ne erga ee

C-7

on defendants’ P’T 15 LB controls provide detent like
engagement with the panel, thereby positioning the con-
trol on the panel until permanent soldering is complete.
Defendants sold the accused device in the United States
after issuance of the patent and notification of infringe-
ment. The court finds, therefore, that plaintiff has prov-
ed infringement of claim 5 of ‘027.

B. Validity

Defendants nevertheless claim that ‘027 is invalid un-
der 35 U.S.C. § 103. The burden rests on them to over-
come, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory
presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. § 282; Mumm v.
Decker & Sons, 301 U.S. 168, 171 (1937); Ortman v.
Maass, 391 F.2d 677, 681 (7th cir. 1968). A patent is
valid if the differences between the prior art and the
claimed subject matter are such that the subject matter
as a whole would not have been obvious to a person hav-
ing ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
pertains at the time when the invention was made. 35
U.S.C. § 108, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966).

To support its counterclaim for declaratory judgment
of invalidity under § 103, defendant offered testimony of
a patent lawyer, four reference patents and the prior art
listed by the Patent Office. This evidence does not sus-
tain the heavy burden of proof imposed on the defen-
dants by 35 U.S.C. 282.

First, the conclusion of defendants’ witness, a patent
lawyer, that ‘027 was obvious in light of the prior art is
entitled to no weight. Disqualified at the trial, the
witness lacked qualifications as an expert on electronics
components, his technical education being limited to one
or two basic mathematics and drafting courses.
Moreover, defendants did not comply with Rule
26(e1b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting
them to supply the substance and subject matter of this
witness’ testimony in response to plaintiffs in-
terrogatories. Even if admitted, the offer would have

C-8

substantive defects. For example, the witness’ conclusion
made no reference to the subject matter as a whole, ob-
viousness to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and the
time of invention, all important elements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the basis of the counterclaim. In 1968, the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted its reluctance
to rely on “. . . the sole testimony in this regard...
provided by a patent lawyer who admittedly was not an
expert ...” National Dairy Products Corporation v.
Borden Company, 394 F.2d 887, 890 (7th Cir., 1968).

It was, on the other hand, the opinion of plaintiff's ex-
pert that the subject matter claimed in ‘027 patent
would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time when the respective inventions
were made. See Thexton Manufacturing Company v.
Soland, 39 USPQ 104, 107 (Minn. 1938).

Three of the four reference patents cited by defendant
were not admitted.2 The one reference admitted,
O'Callaghan, United States Letters Patent No. 2,169,708
relates to a structure for mounting a coil shield upon a
metal chassis, not an insulating board generally used
with printed circuits. Plaintiff's expert testified that the

2 Lazzery et al., United States No. 2,742,627; Del Camp
ry States No. 2,790,961; Hathorn United States No. 2,-
9 J.

The ground for the objection was that each of the patents
was issued after ‘027 was filed. Additionally, no foundation
was laid. Plaintiff's counsel offered to withdraw the objection
if, pywee to filing post trial memoranda, defendants’ counsel
could offer assurance that the applications for the patents
were not substantially changed during their prosecution.
oes ee for plaintiff has indicated no such assurance has been
received.

Moreover, none of these rejected patents relates to variable
resistor controls, and none is directed to accurate temporary
positioning of the control shaft. None shows abutments on sup-
porting means the pur of which is to engage the panel to
enable positioning of the control shaft. None shows an elec-
tronic circuit component having a rotatable control shaft.
None of the references shows certain elements of claim 5 (see
footnote 3, infra).

se ee -

C-9

“shoulders” on O’Callaghan, which perform the detent
like holding function, are “radically different” from the
abutments of ‘027. Moreover, O’Callaghan is not directed
to accurate temporary positioning of the control shaft. It
does not show abutments on supporting means the pur-
pose of which is to engage the panel to enable position-
ing of the control shaft.

No evidence shows that the prior art patents listed by
the Patent Office anticipated claim 5 of ‘027. Each fails
to show several elements of claim 5.°.

IV. Patent No. 3,518,604 ('604)

A. Infringement

United States Letters patent No. 3,618,604 issued in
the names of Thomas R. Beaver and John D. Van
Benthuysen on June 30, 1970 for “Electrical Component”
on an application filed February 12, 1968. CTS holds all
rights in the ‘604 patent. Plaintiff marked the ‘604 pa-
tent number on either conta‘*»ers or inserts. The plain-
tiff alleges infringement of ‘vv4 under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
The question presented is thus whether defendants’ PT
15 device embodies the ‘604 patent and whether it was
“made, used or sold” in the United States. Additionally,
gi counterclaim for declaratory judgment of in-
validity.

3 The elements are (1) “panel engaging abutments with sur-
faces thereon lying in a common plane spaced from the con-
trol shaft but parallel to its axis, said abutments bein

adapted to seat upon a panel and thereby position the contro
shaft of the component a definite distance from the pan-
el.” (2) terminals projecting “substantially perpendicular to
and beyond said plane of the panel en ng surfaces of said
abutments whereby said terminals are adapted to enter holes
in a panel on which the abutments seat.” and (3) snapping
fingers projecting “beyond the plane of the panel engaging
surfaces of the abutments to have detent like engagement in
holes in a panel upon which the abutments seat, and thereby
coact with said abutments to hold the component on the panel
with its control shaft and terminals properly positioned with
respect to the panel.”

C-10

The PT 15 LB was sold by the defendant in the
United States after June 30, 1970, the date the ‘604 pat-
ent issued. The invention represented by ‘604 achieved
an efficient, relatively inexpensive variable resistor con-
trol. Essentially, the invention is comprised of a housing
with closure member forming the housing wall. An
aperture extends through one wall on the housing to ac-
commodate a barrel portion of the driver. CTS markets
the ‘604 invention as its Model 360 Series Control.

Every element in Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10 of the 604
patent reads upon a corresponding element of defen-
dant’s Model PT 15 LB control. Graver Tank v. Linde
Air Products Company, supra. The elements in the PT
15 LB achieved the same results as corresponding
elements in the ‘604 invention. See King-Seeley Thermos
Company v. Tastee-Freez Industries, Incorporated,
supra. The PT controls include, for example, a housing
on one end which is a metal closure forming a wall of
the housing. Also an aperture for accommodating the
barrel portion of the driver appears in the end of the
closure member. The barrel portion protruding beyond
the aperture is flared outward, forming, together with
the housing, a seal against dust. The driver is composed
of heat deformable material.

The defendant offered, to rebut plaintiff's claim of in-
fringement as to ‘604, the testimony of the patent
lawyer, Mr. Lucas. As noted above, the Court dis-
qualified Mr. Lucas beeause of insufficient qualifications
aS an expert on electronic components. National
Dairy Products Corporation v. Borden & Company,
supra. Even if received, the testimony of Mr. Lucas
would not have been persuasive as to infringement of
‘604. During an offer of proof, Lucas stated that it was
his opinion that the claims of the ‘604 patent are not in-
fringed by an electrical component with a shaft secured
in one wall of the housing by a flange formed from the
shaft, if the flange abuts at right angles from the axis of
the shaft. Regardless of whether the flange is perpen-
dicular to the axis or tapered at less than 90 degrees, it
performs the same function in the same way.

en

C-11

B. Validity

Defendants seek declaratory judgment of invalidity as
to the ‘604 patent, alleging that the patent fails to com-
ply with 35 U.S.C. § 103. It bears repeating that defen-
dants must show that the differences between the prior
art and the claimed subject matter are such that the
subject matter as a whole would not have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made. 35 US.C. § 103, Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Defendants have not
met their heavy burden of proof. 35 U.S.C. § 282; Mumm
v. Decker & Sons, supra., Ortman v. Maass, supra.

Plaintiff's expert testified unequivocally that the sub-
ject matter would not have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made. In contrast, defendants, through offer of proof,
offered the testimony of the patent lawyer disqualified
by the court for reasons noted earlier.‘

Although defendants attempted to show that another
form of plaintiff's Model 201 Series controls using a
hollow shaft with a deformed end portion was prior art
to the ‘604 patent, they failed to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, the dates of first sale or public use
of this device. There are no available records or
testimony showing any sales or public use, as dis-
tinguished from date coding, of the CTS Model 201
Series controls having a hollow shaft prior to February
12, 1967 (more than one year prior to the application for
the ‘604 patent). See, Julian v. Driving Systems Co., 346
F.2d 336 (7th Cir. 1965).

‘ See text at 10-11. Even if the testimony had been ad-
mitted, it would not have been persuasive. The witness mis-
stated contents of claim 1 of ‘604. Also, he contradicted the
dictionary definition, cited by him, of the important term
“flared bearing.”

5 The date coding applicable to plaintiffs devices shows only
the approximate date of the stamping or making of a par-
ticular part. It does not indicate the assembly date of the com-

plete component. The date coding does not the sale date

(Footxote continued on foiiowing page)

C-12

Defendants relied principally on the references listed
by the Patent Office at the end of the ‘604 patent, and
the ‘478 patent. The plaintiff's expert clarified the
differences between the subject matter of Claims 1, 5, 7,
8, and 10 of the ‘604 and the prior art cited which fails
to show a variable resistor control with a driver
equipped with a barrel protruding through an aperture
in the wall of an enclosed housing, the protruding por-
tion of which is deformed into a bearing that seals the
housing to exclude dust.

Moreover, because the ‘478 patent discloses fewer of
the claimed elements, it is less pertinent than the Patent
Office references.

Admittedly, the prior art relied upon by defendants
includes a flared bearing or deformed portion. The pur-
pose of the flared bearing in the prior art, however, was
holding parts together, not providing a dust-excluding
seal for an enclosed housing. At the time ‘604 issued,
deformed portions or flared bearings for holding parts
were old and well-known. Moreover, plaintiff's expert
testified that the prior art cited does not anticipate or
fully meet the subject matter of any of claims 1, 5, 7, 8,
or 10 of the ‘604. Even during their offer of proof, defen-
dants offered no evidence tending to show that any of
~ references anticipated the subject matter of these
claims.

> Continued
of the “ey or the date of placement ‘n public use.
e

Moreover, the component may never be sold or used or may
be sold or used more than a year following the date.

Defendants’ reliance on plaintiff's answer to defendants In-
erreqatery 60 to establish date of sale or public use is mis-
placed. That set of interrogatories related to antitrust issues
no ionger in the case, not sales of hollow shaft controis.

C-13

V. Patent No. 3,670,285 ('285)

The remaining questions focus on defendants’
counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of
plaintiffs United States Letters Patent No. 3,670,285.
The counterclaim is brought under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
102(b) and (c) and 112.

Defendants assert that ‘285 lacks utility and therefore
validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ‘285 was developed with
the intent of producing a resistor that could be manufac-
tured less expensively than other CTS resistors. While
the court acknowledges evidence indicating that some of
the models produ did not perform satisfactorily on
certain “gradient” tests, defendants have not met the
heavy burden of proof required to establish lack of utili-
ty. For a patent to be “useful” under § 101, it need not
be perfect for commercial use. Field v. Knowles, 183
F.2d 593 (C.C.P.A. 1950). Mr. Barden, vice president of
CTS in charge of engineering and development, testified
that samples of ‘285 were commercially satisfactory as a
variable resistor control. Moreover, an original model
functioned properly, with test results confirming this
result on subsequent occasions.

Defendants have also failed to sustain the burden of
proving invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. That section
provides in part:

“The specification shall contain a written descrip-
tion of the invention, and of the manner and process
of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise
and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in.
the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same.. .”

The court has not had the benefit of expert testimony
as to whether the specifications satisfy Section 112. See
Lorenz v. General Steel Products Company, Inc.. 337
F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1964). Defendants’ reliance upon the
failure of some of the samples is, without more, inade-
quate to permit the court to find the specifications defec-

C-14

tive under the statute. See Williams v. Administrator of

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 463
F.2d 1391 (C.C.P.A. 1972).

Defendants also contend that the Piher PT 15 variable
resistor was on sale or sold in the United States more
than a year prior to the filing date of the application for
the ‘285 patent, March 16, 1970, and therefore invalid
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Under § 102(b), a person is en-
titled to a patent unless the invention was “. . . in public
use or on sale in this country more than one year prior
to date of the application for patent in the United
States.” The standard required for proof that the inven-
tion of ‘285 was in public use or placed “on sale” prior to
application is “clear and convincing” evidence. Julian v.
Drying Systems Co., 346 F.2d 336, 338 (7th Cir. 1965).

While it is settled that a consummated sale is un-
nec , and the placing “on sale” only is required,
Burke Electric Co. v. Independent Pneumatic Tool Co.,
234 F. 93 (2nd Cir., 1916), Wende v. Horine, 225 F.501
(7th Cir., 1915), it is also established that a device must
have existed as a finished article for sale, on hand ready
for delivery. Burke, supra; Conn. Paper Products, Inc. v.
N.Y. Paper Co., 39 F. Supp. 127 (Md.), modified on
other grounds, 127 F.2d 423, (4th Cir. 1942). The device
must be “on sale” in this country. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The evidence shows that Piher received part (plastic
housing) of a proposed PT variable resistor in October,
1968. Merely a part of a device is insufficient predicate
for a finding of “on sale.” Part of a device cannot an-
ticipate a patent, or be ready for delivery, even assum-
ing offers for sale. See, Reo Motor Car Co. v. Gear Grin-
ding Machine Co., 42 F.2d 965 (6th Cir. 1930). No com-
plete samples were available in the United States until
March 25, 1969, less than a year prior to the application
date. Moreover, defendants’ witness, Ricardo Balil,
former president of Piher, admitted that samples sent to
Motorola as late as July, 1969, although complete, were
unsatisfactory.

C-15

Defendants’ evidence does show some sales activity
more than a year prior to the application date. For ex-
ample, Balil testified to quoting prices to prospective
customers beginning in January, 1969. There is evidence
that a sample was ordered March 3, 1969, and sent from
Spain thereafter. On balance, however, and with defen-
dants heavy burden of proof in mind, the court must
find that defendants have failed to prove invalidity un-
der § 102(b). There is no clear and convincing evidence
of an anticipating device that was complete and ready
for delivery within the statutory period.

Finally, defendants contend under 35 U.S.C. 102(c)
that plaintiff abandoned ‘285. Section 102(c) provides
that a person shall be entitled to a patent unless he has
“abandoned the invention.” In theory, an inventor aban-
dons an invention when he has dedicated his invention to
the public. See, 2 Deller’s Walker on Patents § 128 (2d
ed. 1964). “No abandonment of an invention after the
issue of Letters Patent has ever been judicially decided
to exist in the United States.” Id. § 151. Failure com-
mercially to exploit an invention of the ’ 285 patent does
not establish abandonment. Jmperial Brass Mfg. Co. v.
Bonney Forge & Tool Works, 38 F. Supp. 829 (E.D. Pa.
1941).

Applying these principles, the court finds that defen-
dants have not proved abandonment either prior to or
after ‘285 issued. It is true that CTS has yet to bring
‘285 into production. However, the device had been
“reduced to practice” in May, 1968 and again in
January, 1969. See Dart Industries, Inc. v. E. I. DuPont
De Nemours and Co., 489 F.2d 1359, 1365 (7th Cir.
1973), quoting 24 Stan. L. Rev. 730, 743 (1972) (invention
reduced to practice when there is a “completely operable
physical embodiment”). Delay in filing application after
reduction to practice (not more than two years in the in-
stant case) does not constitute abandonment. Lowell v.
Peer, 148 F.2d 212, 213-214 (CCPA, 1945) (over 4 years).
Without more, the court cannot conclude that CTS’
failure to exploit commercially ‘285 amounts to a dedica-
tion of the device to the public.

DATED: September 25, 1974

D-1

APPENDIX “D”

T R. BEAVER ETAL
ELECTRICAL COMPONENT
Filed Feb. 12, 1968

June 30, 1970 3,518,604

D-2

United States Patent Office 151860

Patented June 30, 1970

Be04
ELEC TREK AE COMPONENT
Thoms: 8. Reaver sed Jobe 1). Van Keathuswr, $b art.
ied. euiguers te ( TS Corporstion, Elimart. ind. 4

Filed Feb. 12, 1968, Ser. No. 704.843
lat. CL MOte vv.
tS CO 338—166 2 ( baiens

ABSTRACT OF TIE Disc tors RE

Barrel pornon of a control operating meams is rel tally
wpported @ an aperture formed wa « wall of «4 compe
houwng Flared porta of barre! extends ancund pe-

of the aperture to pros nde Sndeng bearing surface
dust eal Rady pornon of operating
lumety the degree of insertion of Parte! penton on
Bave shutting surfaces formed in the hows-

it

a wall of the howwng comperte to pic nely
base relatwe to the howure Phe standoff. on
and dando, on the bose operse to spare
from a mewntng beard fermen stems
ed in the hase may inhale crap in merunung means
facinating mowntine of the Component on 4 cucu
. Cementitions mitenal my he wed to improve
‘eal between the have and the hewung of the control

se

invention

The Prevent invention relates to clectrial components
and. more purinularly. to clectinal Components wherem
a UPPOTNe member retatably supperts a movable con
trol operating means in spaced telutomhe to a base
membcr

In many apotic ations of clotecal Components. tn ex
Memely wvportant that th Compencats re provaded with
Means for preventing dunt of other foregn matter from
entering the compuncat Often the component nm made
Sartatle -o thot the mpedane of the compuncat may be
father prey, ely ond ncweatcly abasted ft is desitabh
f mn nevevaty. that the Conteal eq erstingy mes teed to
* Compl: Dy sen hy wlpte stern bec epee edd mnt eng the
Het oe belong wtepety of th ooompenent, he cs aly aml
Peitively cog ipeuble mm unmolly ot by a teal, amd he cap
rhle of ont a om sttap of the component
are on aye treat hos bec mete

Weretetene, on 7) component. havc mmeorpenatert a
hvlent « shag meminr, seh as a roubher © ene. com
Brewed betwcen the counted opetotng means and hows
Os ems fon oe ahong the component apaist dust amd for

Prvnhne whey fotetenal torque, ce. abequate friv- 5

Wevtl ices Lame te chamges we the setting of the compe
Met be ote pectin. ewer. the use of sch a com-
Mewd i net member offen has net piealaved sates
factory oe alts tee seene ot the temlemy of the compressed
eM e tee wend ee al osoment of the component
ad sites pane alpetment hus been attained. the
(Ade Ot the Comprcsscd member to unwind of “sprine-
Mek” and alter the sdpstment of the component. in

EPO AeA wong Compressed resiix at membors
Rave often heen less than Sitrtactory Because the com-
Mewed member. have esther bowt thew resthemey or other:
“ne Reome uncompressed with the result that the rota-
feted torque charactermtc of the component hus heen
Changed and the dust exchlng soterrity of the Compo-

fem has heen comprcmred In many of the components 7

comprescd reshent menihess tt has ale Peon
AReery to permet the control Upersting Meany te have

integral «uh the bowing. and stondufls -

is made to the clams for a legal dexription :

tee decrees of freedom of movement bor exumple. the
contre! operating means has been fre te rotate im order
te tpt the component and bis heen free te mone in an
ob dteshen te compress the revwhent member Thi
fuctom te mose on an anal direction hus been found
be case some difficulty om preceely adpmtng a compo-
moat Peeune the control operating means has sometimes
mreeed aval) am the houswog when hemg drcreared by
© wists tow Phe menement after attarnnent of a

, Ther Pf ne sefeng of the Componeet can hace the wa

dev ehte fete alienme sah sctung

Sc corntongh. & wont be desaanle to provele an om-
rood clevtrnal component where a mosoble control
epg meats es rotetaPhly sepported by the Component
Pre ioserng te present dust frets cotenng the howang where
the conteol operating m ams ws cols and porutvely en-
grccamMe for adyostment thereof, wherem the movable
control om coteng mesons. inherently tends to mamta set-
tones of the component after precise adjustments thereof.
ub where the contral operating meuns is povdively re-
~romd from monung axtally wethen the component. it
well Be onde rstued. of course. that clectucal components
havwe the oforementwoacd und following devwrabdle fea-
teres showht be adapted for autemated awembly techni-

gues and should be ot least as ccongnrical to monufacture

a the compe eet. ond beretefone

ht she would be dese able to prove an mmproved clec-
thot component where 9 the control howwng « provided
with base abetteng surfaces for spaceng the boxe of the
compencet a predetermpuned dietome from the control
Op rating means and «lorem the houwng is provided with
one or more Manges sw aced around the base to hold the
bive acest the bic abutting safes so as to prevent

ies ef dust inte: the howung arownd the Pave,

Many chvtrial Components ate trequently provuded
with bt eomtons adupted to be pluceed into sahkets on
cuctt bends Accotduely at ale would Ke desu able to
provate on chettaal component wah terminations having

. seep mounting means that Lichtute mounting of the

z
s

Compouncnt on a cuit board Yet another desiable fea-
the wotld he to provide means on the housing and ‘or
boxe for positively spacing the component from a circuit
Ienotel to facebtate Mesteng ond leaning hemmecn the com-

> pement ond corcuet benerd Sth speccting aber wenthl ag-

comptes the dhwtable seselt of cm omtaging comwes tem
corrent. betwoen the bead and the component fet died
pote heat generated dunng operation of the componcat
Acconbegh. an elect af the prescat inv ution is te
prownde c new and mmproved electra ol compeoncat having
the santos desiable features set forth wheve Another
ohyet af the present uvention ete provide an clectrig al
Componcat partuliualy adapted few automated as caibly
tec haignes wherein the Komponent hay a tedined number
of puts thereby to perout increed econamics in the
minotactue of sah component Stull another object of
the preocnt invention \ te provide a new and improved
clectical Component wherein a movable control operating
moans prevents dust from entering the component. mam-
Lams a predetermined rotational torque during the hfe of
the Component, and is capable of being moved to effect
a prixe adjestment of the component while exhibiting
an wherent tendemy to maintain such adiusiment. A fur-
ther otect af the present invention is to provule an easily
and readily engageable movable control operating means
whah, when asembled with a component housing, is
rotstable relative to the housing with a predetermined
rotabonal torque and which is restramed from moving m
an axial direction relutwe to the component. A still fur-
ther obect of the prevent invention is to provide an im-
preed clectncsl component ehercin means precisely
space the hase of the Component from the control oper-

D-3

SiS wl

3

eh ben ans and meons bedkd the ba mn aewemiled ala
hem te the compencet sa onder ty prevent the ingtess of
du t ote the (oom tot stowed the Paxe A fnee SS
fx of po tiod che mvcetem & to provede an improved cles
thal Ceeepenent one. wap an AeounAg means and
means for pesitieely spocome the Component from a cir
cut Rood euh wha the component is to be ultunately
use

These obyects ore accomplened in a vordame eith onc
form of the pre-cat rn-cation by prosnting an aperture in
one wall of the Roawwng of «a satiable fesetone contrel
amd oscmbhing a mosaic contiel opersting mean, wath
wah how ang by mcttime a barrel poten of the conte
operat, means through the apertere In onder to secure
the oper tine Means to the hewune and form a sal there
euah « rete of the OF falMy fa ahs flares ered ene thy
athe tee poop hae et te aperture and fone 4 seater
Dae fat conten woth a bearing sotface of the Pease
wheke pester eathdrae al ef the bared from the oper
ture A tealy porbon ot the opetotng means onte ctl wath
the boreel porten. bets the deone of marten of the
baricl re toa mm the opertme Prodoteraunet spame ot
the Pose from th Comtral ome atene meus 8 athened bs
fee mene 6 base abutiene serface or houhder internally of
the Poe wng S contractor, comtrenmed to rotate aah the
Loft! optatne Means me @edced Pelwcen the ope: ating
mean amt oe base the latter tee clement hone beld
om fixed pec temic spe tal cof teen hap by te fue ene

facmobuned Phe beat petite of the Cantal apes
shee teens Can epteemally be de peri apsede ot ontsut
th. bene one Ute flacd Peeters of the Comte om rating
mean formes 4 cust «od walt the henneng. maintain 4 te
wet foxteem ed reastence te tetutam of the oper atne
moons pre des a ceed Roane orf while a tinge
i thet boeme ond father proved. «a ponte for the
mation eft an ode tg teal when the Peat portion of
th: ogee tere means o bepersc fd enternally of the Peni
In onder te space the stumble resmstame control from a
hoarston wha d the Camtral 6s ao be mounted. «andolly sce
formed ontegral wath the Rave and the howene and m 4
preferred crotxahment the stondedt. fimo on the Rews-
me provide adderall means for per mnenime the base tels
tee te the Powune Lermunals anchored m the buve ate
cunne. ted to tewtence mewn and collect means sap
forced of the base Lo Cacihtate mounnng of the contre
on avuved Poard the tccmumalk may be formed to pro
sede S82 en moony Means

The subyest Matter whe we regard as our imvenuon
ws set forth on the appended clause The invention nell,

hoecser together eth further obyts and advantages *

tere ft may be Petier understuad Dy referring te the fol
hosing des pteems taken im conmectien with the accom
Panvene crestly enlarged drawings

i) bean nomen wee of 4 mimoture variable re-
vetance vootrol embedsing Our mention FIG 2 w a
vhonad sew of the vanamMe revstame control of 1M.
1 ti, Ye an enlarged view of «6 porto of Tit, 2
Pie os am exploded wee of the saree resmstunce con
tel of Pie teem puts roken anus. and the haw fo
tate Tau" to shew the fewstunce path FIG © an no
ttn sece cf meeeuhbe contnel operatne mean ued
mithc omhelof ii. | ant bi. © «= an mometrn saw
of «4 anneotute + athabhle fesmtame comtrad hiving “wap
terminal means and emhodken’ our mvcntion

Kefertng pow more Pattelath to the diaemg.. a
votteble fevetome (onal cmbalbing one form of the
wscatem a. gemcralh) atontfad by Me cefereme numeral
8 As best howe en DIGS © nd 2 the comtred 10 Com
fees 4 dust culations howung 1 a rotatably supported

conttied Op rte ms on th form of a deince 02. a 7
frees abt otto 08nd met te petate wath the shaves
O23 ty the wet tte ef sat hel oem sah as the
' . 84 a the cheevee) aed cert FO om the con

tate wef a tee a ceteity OF Wah totercme to P 10%
2 thee eh S at well ie soon in tthe dimer 12 compones o

Peety prertece DB ett tee a step cb eet 09 om cere ide
eth a sietaty stop BE fteree f ne the Rowen. ond on
tertoet ol. deedtn al pestamon boat 22 eaten Wrereedhy
the a,cetoe TB bee ee A. hot te en am tie, Mi
4 destal portnied the Paccet as Mate d cnta stl cet the
extern Pada of the aperture 24 te form a flored army
24 ch peed om tas face of the Romine and to form
a cee t eastadne soul acount the poophery of the apes.
ture 23 fy hebdeng the dint 02 femly apaint one site
ef the Inemeng. to. the cmd 36 of the shat 27 iwe Fis
Yad?) whole th bea te 246s here formed acaeng on
opp ce cate af the hea the deer me teeth oo .q)
Bho woth the Rowame 88 ent omy tendemes bor aunt Dune
mnt of the Bartel 22a the ap cetuve BR ts steht aniaity
chorecated by the «chen ef the pon of oppowd bees mgy
24. 28 we est epg ob wha os of the how ane

\itheweh the boreel 22 i fated at the det Por hog
thercot ao owill Re captesdy weehootood that aon only
mecowty that oppescd beating uihaces eiteytal woth the

» dren coat wath Coon ponding oppused b are Shas,

catned by the hows Thos. the het 23 on wall of tie
apehere te fee a COIS CO Cela PHONE bored
here te proside « Pan of state sebtentiodh op
pened beatin: wattaes cated by the hanewne ond th.
bareed mes have 4 Dero rorten. on the form of a b wing
fing. coating with the Reotiee i the hewune Ht wall he
aprtectited that ohon the tienars beanies wom the
form ot a come eg betwee the ame: de nee sutface ot
the apeitured wall the Maret be came nme on the haere
mee) Be teamed oth tee tthe af the chaser ond ibe
“Hopped mie plice m the states oy Beane Altermenel.
ase ef the descend heeune may be wconph deed
by bebbog the bareel on poston on the aperture and heat
searme ot othorw ine deformine 4 perpheral Potion of
the Parel to tem oo fled hearme coating with the
Mateos be arene totmed en the Rosny

Neos haveng tfetome ome acum to the embodiment
ef PUGS 2 at tot wall be opprestated that the Nased
Porton of the bart 12 is char wterired by wrvetal devi
able uperatmal chataterintes More speccficully, the
wut settace 29 of the Mured perten 31 form. a dua
exhohng seal with the hows, proves an efnular
hearmg 24 for retain of the drwer 12 relative wo the
howwne 18. creates frational revtame io rotsvon of
the dimer 12 by teawn of the franon bee cen hea ing
24 and the housing. and provuics a velf scmMeniOg gual:
was for a aot sown control sdhusting taol when such tool

ment are attamatle by reason of \ariows structural inter-
telavenships between the driver 12 and tne housing It
bor cxample, the owter diameter of the barrel 22 is
preferably selected relatiwe to the inner diameter of the
wirtise 33 of the skirt 27 Ww peraut comparatively free
Totvon Retwcen the driver am! housing shite subse
trolly preventing movement of the driver radially wa
respect to the aperture Adequate frictional rewsance ®
FoLatwon ny accomplished by eviabiinhine, during avembly.
a pred termaned presuwie of engarement hetween the hear:
ime 24 amd @ heaving surface Mon the housing Since
the pressure of eneagement may vary. a. a function of
among other things. the angle of inclination of the flared
~witwe 29 relate to the aw of rotavon of the diner
13. the xctual mmterface area hetwcen the bearing wriat
34 ant Rearime 24. and the materials ued im making the
diver and howung the Optimum prevure of engacemest
Ws Rest dotermunet empurcatly atier specifi materiah aw
seometrnal comheuratoms have been selected for mm
driver amd howe Ry selecting a desirable pressure of

Pevephery ct thee agertiene 204 dhe sratbe dese es, bahar
seal ies att enoed He wall ate ct comme Ie appees cotest tel

© the aportened wall of the Rowse Eb is teetthy sede n

D-4

3,518,604

eRe zR?
ital
rele:
iF
sit
Ae
bal:
cf

itil

i
iin; |
Hints |
a

rhe

Ht

ty
i
hie
er |
igk4s

|
i
23k
|
:
4

:
z
Ti
:
f
3¢
zz

fii
!

+

i

2

z
Pei
rb
iz

att
ty :
#7 E2725
HEF
ee=85
32 3Si¢
ele
: ergs
tei .
ny HE
istlii

;
a2
Sz

|

in
i
#3
§

:

Hf

r

4

E

3

a cementitious material slong the shoulders formed
the have abutting surface 49 of the housing prior to
assembly of the base with the howwng further improves
the dust excluding cha: acterstics of component, embody -
™ our invention. Cementitious materials witahe for
thy purpene inchute well known vilicone adhesives which
femam in a soft of semcured Mate

za

the flap $6 v0 that after formation of the hearing 28 and
defwmation of the flip $6 around the periphery of the
~Petture 23. the flap may lie above the relieved area as
shown im the drawing, or actually be depressed into the
rehe ved arco. depending on what pressure of engagement

Teltne postion of the driver and houwswng as viewed for
fsample om EMG 2 is veversed. the flap may he formed
sy the suk SBy of the wall $8 as shown or along

#d the barrel 22 is Mared around the periphery of the
Srerture 23 against the internal surface $84 of the houung
With this alternative arrangement, the periphery of the

arr

hody pornon 18 may he knurled or otherwine contoured
adjustment thereof

AS ell be best appreciated from an iaspection of FIG.

1b

2

”

ate with the standuff, $9 fenmed on the base and space the
control from a net shown mewntung panel of cucit
board Such spacing is often required im onder te insure
that flus or solder 68 uppled te the terminal puns 46-48
during automatn soldering operations all net Contact a
Major portion of the Control tn adkliten. such spacing will
teadily permut flushing between the terminal pins after
the control 10 1s mownted on a crc board and will ale
permit the movement of Come teve a current. between
the .ontrol oad the board Sow having refereme te BIG.
6 it will be wen that Contred 6F Mlustrwved theron 6 gen.
erally wmlar te the Coote! of BG 1 However, the ter-
ounal pins 62-64 hare been proveled with rawaidly and
outwardly diverging cam segments te provide snap in
mounting means With this artangement, the component
can be readily and cavily snapped into place on a not
shown printed circuit board with the standoffs 66 7@ spac-
ing the control 69 from the boord

When the control Hlustrated in BIG 1 was actual con-
structed, the base 39 was formed of high alumina t aving
@ thickness after firing of about 0.090 of an unch, « width
of about 0.190 of an inh. and a depth of about 0.375
of an inch. the termunal puny 46 Secte formed from tin
coated, half hard 018 of an inch diometer copper wire
and the comlactive center collecter 42 was applied to the
base The resistame path was «icened onto the boe
and comusted of a conmet rowtame motel The paddle
78 of Lontater 13 was titted with a carbon comtuct bat
ton 720 The padkile 78 was formed from the body of the
contacter EV as dlustisted and the diver and housing
vere molded from a thormeplitin material During as-
sembly, the fared desing 24 was formed by heat swug-
mg as were the flanges $Ou Slu and the contacter was
wedged betucen the driver 12 and bise assembly 17 with
the paddles 71, 73 resilently engaging the resistance means
41 and collector 42, respectively. While we have shown,
as an embatiment of cur invention, a control having a
generally rectangular configurotion. a will be capresstly
understad that generally cylindenal control with the
termuinol proyecting fiom the side or the base thereof
can, with equal facilay crbody the present invention.

In view of the foregoing. it will be appreciated that we
have provided an improved electraal Contral having um-
proved contral operating means and having wumproved

* base and homung structural interrelaionships. More spe-

tibcally, the improved control operating means maintains
adequate rotational torque of the Control, is not shiftable
axially relative to the housing. and exhibts ne tendency
to inherently change the control setting after adjustments
thereto.

While there has been illustrated and dewribed what is
at present considered to be a preferred embodiment of
the present invention, it will be appreciated that numerous
changes and modifications are likely to occur to those
skilled in the art, and it i, intended in the appended claims
to cover all those chanacs and modifications which fall
within the truc spirit and scope of the prevent invention.

What we claim as new and desire to secure by | ctters
Patent of the United States is:

1. A variable resistance control comprising a dust ¢x-
cluding housing having « plurality of walls. a base clos-
ing the housing and forming « wall thereof, an aperture
in one of the walls, a driver supported by the how ing for
rotation relative thereto, resistance means supported with-
in the housing. and a contactor wipingly engaging the
resistance means and constrained to rotate with the
. the driver comprising a body portion and a bar-

al with the body portion, the barrel extending
through the aperture with a portion of the barre! secur-
ing the driver to the housing, said portion of the barrel
including a flared bearing extending wutwardly from the
periphery of the aperture.

2. The control of claim 1 wherein the housing com-

i

a

1, the standofls $3-5$ formed on the housing Tf cooper: 75 pres abutment means for posivomng the base relative -

D-5

3.513,004

7
tw the howsng. and at leat one wall extends across a
portion of the have, sand at least one wall having a flange
swaged over the baw to secure the hase to the howsing

3. The control of «hve 1 wherein « plurality of ter-
minals are supported ty the Base and proyect from a sur-
face theresd. said bave and howsing having a plurality of
standefly formed thereon for spacing the control from
a mounting board to be used with the control, at least one
of Une standaffs formed on the howung providing means
for perntioning the base relative to the housing.

4 The .ontrol of clam 1 wherem a collector is div-
posed within the houvng. the contactor is wedged be-
tween the driver and the base. and the contractor is pro-
vided with first and second paddies. the first paddle wip-
ingly engaging the collector, and the second paddle wip-
imely engaging the reviiance means

S$ An electrical componcat comprising a heaving hay-
ing a plurality of wolls, a base chrine the housing and
forming a wall thereuf, one of wid walls having an aper-
ture therem. a contre! operating means retatably sup-
ported on the aperturc. revitance means supported within
the howng. 2 comiator wipingly eneoping the resisiance
means aml comiruned to move upon rotaten of sd
contra) operating means the comtrel operating means
compreing a bel) portion and 4 tool receiving portn
axially abened with the aperture. sant control operatine
means further compming a fired portion extending
areund the periphery of the aperture te form a Rearine
supret for the comtrel operstine means, te farm a seul

with the Rewong. and te facta inerien of a wool im *

the fowl recenving portion

6 A varuble revitiance contre! comprivine a dust cx
chading houwng having 2 plurality of walls. a dave clovung
the houwwng and formung a wall thereof, an aperture in
one of the wall. a dower supported by the howung for
rOtaiwn relative thereto. reisiame means supported
when the howsny. and a contactor wipingly engaging the
revwsiame mean, and constrained to mune UPON rotation
Of the driver. the driver extending through the aperture
with a portion of the driver securing the driver to the
housing amd waling the howune around the penphers of
the aperture. a sealing hip integral with wand one of the
wally extending around the periphery of the aperture. sant
sealing hp beng Ucformed vutwardly from the periphery
of the aperture and being engaged hy wal driver to im
prove the veal Between the howung and the driver

7. A variable revstance control comprning a dust ex
chudeng housing having a plurality of walls, a hase cloung
the howsving and forming a «wall thereof. an aperture in
one of the wall. a dimer supported by the howung for
movement relative thereto. revstance means supported
when the howung. and 4 contactor wipengly engaging
the resistence ine ans and comstrained to Move UpOR move.
ment of sand driver. the diner extending through the aper
ture wth o fete of the driver vung the driver te
the howseng amd scahng the Rowong around the perpher)
of the aperture, sat portion om heding o fared hearing
extending atound the pernphery of the aperture

8 the .ontral of clam 7 where a sop clement is

carried by the driver and cooperates with @ Mabuniry
sop projecting from wal howung for howting Movemen
of the diuiver relive to the howung

9 A vanable reviiance contre! compriving @ dust ¢y.
excluding howiung having a plucality of wall. a haw

6 clovine the housing and forming a wall therool, an aper.
ture on one of the wally. a driver supported Dy the henunge
for rotation relative therety, reseianve MeaM supporiog
within the howsing. and a contactor wipingly engagine the

jy Teance means and comtiamed W folie with the
driver, the driver exiending throuweh the aperture with 4
portion of the drier securing the driver to the howung
and scaling the housing around the periphery of the aper
ture. a skirt formed integrally with said one of the wiih

15 #f inner surface of the shirt defining the aperture, an an.
nular track formed on a surface of said one of the wan,
around the skirt, the driver bearing against said shire, g
stop clement carried by the driver for travchne in the
annular track, and \ stationary stop disposed in sand track

ay S@orcrating wah the slop element fur linuting fot.tion of
the driver relative to the howung.

1@ An clectiical component Comprising a housing hay.
ing a plurality Of wally, @ base clowng the howong ong
fornung a wall thercef, an aperture in one of the walk

2) fevitame means supported within the howung. 4 com
tavtor diayposed within wad housing i wiping engacement
with sand rostance means. and a driver evtending through
weet aperture. send diver bem connected to sant com.
tater for empatting movement to sad COntator

oa “abl Cosetame means. a porbon of sod dever CN ending
Outward trom ihe periphery of the aperture and form.
mg a Dewing Cagaging 4 bearing surface of wail
therehy securme the diver to ths housing and waling the
how ong around the permphery of the aperture.

ry OER The elevtrnal component of claim 10 wherein
sealing hp extends around the periphery of the aperture
aml enpages sant dimer to improve the seal between the
Rousing and the driver.

12 The clevtenal component of claim 11 wherein wid

to scaling bp ns deformed outwardly from the periphery of
the aperture and muniains pressure of engagement with
the portion of the driver eciending outwardly from the
periphery

aa References ( ted
UNITED STATES PATENTS
3.237.140 «62° 1966) Barden et al. ....... 138-160
Mishler

4.387.247) «66/1988 ~Mistler ..... 338-1
= 3.196.499 = 1963) Hudson ef al. ..... 338—174X
1.197.726 «67/1965 Mulhern 2.2 338164
1.406.167 10/1968 Maguire ........ -- 338-16

S0W9.0S7) 7/1963) Cook...
D.218.503) 11/1965) Pearle .......... 176-153 X

53 LARAMIF F. ASKIN, Primary Examiner
A T GRIMEEY. Avistant t cominer

US CL KR.
Vie -184, 322

E-1
APPENDIX “E”

Feb. 22, 1966 W. A. BARDEN ETAL 3,237,140
VARIABLE RESISTANCE CONTROL

Filed May 20, 1963 2 Sheots-Sheet }

13

we ze

. cos zz
S* Ls - ama, oi ‘2

a a
VA 7/2 M14."

POS &

, 38 im the slots 444 and 444 and the apertured

4

In «ord wah the prewnt imvention, the \orpurting
moins 20 © prarkd eh amether ctcmulircnniy
sthohne stemkh 26 dogenet maa diy of the cu —
fetemiely extembay seeukter 2b fot soppertng wie eng
of the teewer 40 om the bewung HE AS wenn Ih,.
CES 2 amet oot the dh awengs, the Mewhhis 28 ay %
Of the sopporting memher 30 prowne Coal a Bi pbery!
vers along th ooter edre Mheref The diver ag of
melted Jonsittin ten in povekd with a depending
41, the ponpheral hip dhe thereof cercumpowne the shou
dey Je wt the supporting nxmiss 200 Me wall (y
steed that, on operation, the tons cactied by thy Stivers
40 ageunst Ihe supporting member 36 und the en
ot fen determune the amount of torque PEC ary By

3 Totes the driver with respect to the supporting Pm be

for aitermg the revintanye setting eof the control poy
hang the driver against the supporting member 2,
4 thrust washer 42 di posed inwle of the be.
tween the top sariace 400 of the diet 3@ onl the
wutacc of the closure wall nw employed = The theo
washer 42 aby ctlectively seals the upper porhon of the
howe HF and prevent, monture amd the like from enter.
me the her mer Potion of the howwny By altering
the tha kness of the thrust water 42, the force ©Nered
by th shaver 40 ayant the supporting member may he
var t

A we wen in DICURE 3 of the diasines, the driver
46s provided with a downs anily extending post «, ba
43 contiatly lex sied on the Potion wall of the driver
48 for supportns and centering the contact a
SO Mente specihcally, ie ootat ancmoly Je py Pro
valet wah aA apertined mweattly extending tongue uy.
the duowaw atdly catending busy 43 of the drver 4 ring
inserted im the aperture of the tongue 34 for Centering

5 the contat awomily 30 In onder to ayure that the

coniat ay mbly 38 a properly mounted in the driver
and totatable therewath, the mner portion of the Univer
40 ws provnted woth a pair of spaced slots 64a and 44
for tec: a pur of outwardly estending tah Je
and 334 sexpectively of the contact aveembly. Each of
the slots ny dispowd Petecen an abutiment ProK.ting w
wardly of the depen.ling Mange 41 and the surface of the
heaton wall of the diver 4@. By mounting the outward.
ly catemdeng tabs 334 and 334 of the contact

i

eviending tongue M over the dk
43. the (antact awmbly in pr
diver and rotatable therewith The pow
contat awembly 48 and the outwardly ¢
33a and 33+ fixedly wcured in the slots

vrenward

Fi
;
hi
Hy

, and coment the tuby 33a and 334 mm the slots 440 an

44h
_ for the purpose of electrically connecting any pout
intermediate the ents of the arcuate resistance fim 2
te the contact Dutton 284 integrally secured to the const
termunal 28, the contact awemPhl, 30 is provided wah 3
fect ly beat or tunedin fincer 34 extending from te
Pow 30s thereat, the Hip thereof contacting the collector
button 2&6 (sce RAGU'RE 2 of the drawings) The
Rowhality of the finger Moin increased by connecting 4
at a pent mot remote from the center of the contest
accorly 30 A pair of Miurcated arcuate am Me
and 38h extender from the Pas: My of the contact &
ems toward the whe dumetically opposite the Nt
pen te senpert 4 carbon comtuct button 36 arranged #
the Doing a0 as bo wipe oF tide over the arcuate roe
ame flew 23 as the dewer is rotated through a preset
nom dt sate

A.cording to the precet umvecnuon. the contact at?
bly JO, the atvual, sesstame film 22, and the coo
Pett 380 of the Conter Ktmunal 26 ace omlond 0

E-5

3,237,140

5
the downs ardly eviendirg unre 41
the top surface of the wappen ting
@ explamed shove, the fin tron Mreccn
4a of the flanre 41 of tin dint
presents the drat from
madverieatly ratcted by centeriupal fc ou the
ah respect to the supper fp owicr le lhe te
of the drnct con fat me
inner wall of the cylin al mem co 22
the Whustrated arrangement, means must te pr
for externally of the b wome
ef. 2 “reediiwes com be
ito the aperiure 18 wf the howwnge BE for
engaging the top surface of the din vr 40
. addrvonal me uns «owl!
supporting the end of the
Giver most remote from the supporting membcr 20 Hy
the driver 40 auth 4 non
FIGURE 5$ of the d asines) and
by providing the end of the shalt SO with 2 conti cuiatwon
43. ie. @ nomi lat wom.

rey
EA
2:8;

leat
Heptte
PASH

|
|

cw the shaft jowrnied om the
aperture 18 of the closure wall 13 of the heeouns a'w
totataMy supports the driver 40 Moreover, t« end of

the shaft S@ can be imveried into the cavity 48 of the 2

im a simple and faile manner Whon the
comrol 10 is provaded with a short shaft £0. a vot St
: m end thereof Accordingly. the shaft
3@ transfers the rotational torque applied from the es
terwor of the
ung and, at the same time, rotatably supports one

drier im the housing. Ry detachably sccsins
shaft $@ to the driver im accord with the present in-
ik posible to awwmble quickly vwariab'c resi

housing to the diner4@ intciwr of the ¢

a

ance controls with various types of external shalt. and |:

Prevent foreign maticr, ef. tures and the bhe. fiom
emicring the cavity of the driver cnclowng the contact
axcmbly and th: resistame element

When operating the viriable resistance control 10, it
cferable that some means he emploved to bliowt the
lar rotation of the driver 40 and the contact as-

32

aemhMy 30 thereto Otherwie, the carbon Put.

ton 36 will show rapid wear when wiped ocr the ter-

minal ends of the resistance cl.ment tn the preferred

form of the invention, the housing 11 is provided with a

Sop meam, ¢ ¢.. a downwardly cvicnding projection such

asa Mop pin 17 (sce DIGHURE 2) for hewting the rotation

of the driver 48. As the shaft $@ 5 totsted. a stop mem-

her $3. as best wen in FIGHIRD 6 of the drawines, en-

fares the stop pin 97 and prevent. further rotation of -
the shaft $@ and the driver 48 Since the shalt $@ is of

a hord material, for example, sice!. and the siop mem.

her $3 is an integral part thereof, inalveriont cxcessive

force will not shear the stop member $3 from the shaft

S@ of the stop pin 17 from the howwng 11. Morcover,

“me the stop member $3 inicgrally connected to the

~haft, the strength of the connection berween the shaft

and the dover is immaterial. A notch 28 (vee FIGURE

1) provided im the supporting member 20 engages on in-

warily extending detent 29 in the howwng for onentoting

the member 20 with the sviop pin 17. This the stop pin

17 .tways halts the angular rotstion of the driver 48 when

the carhon button 36 of the contact awembly 3@ reaches

the end of arcuate rewsiance film 22

In onder to maintain the supporting member 26 fixedly

‘ecured against the shoukler 16 of the howung Tf, a

tround plate 18 as wen in PKGURES 2 ard § of the draw-

mes is dinponed against a portion of the hotiom surface

of the supporting member ani the contiguous portion of
the cp hadrical member 12 of the howung. ¢ ¢. hy welding
the ground plate 18 to the howong ot py dewruble to
seal the unit. a nonconductive cpory coment 19 6 poure!
into the cavity defined by the bottom surt.ce of ihe sur

one eon © oe er be con aeteeaen
wall of the cylindrical member 12. In some arpix ations.

he

eo

6
ws preferable to pround the houwng to various circuit
corapenents of the lhe ( @nscquently. one of more not
shown dependeng termnnsls are provid with the ground
nruct#

The emisabment scoa un PAG KE § of the dir ewines is
sah tentiolly the ame os the embooloneat of PICHRE 1.
the mann dflecenme beuny that the howung $4 6 prowded
wots threded potton $8. ant a shoft §@ & prowded
eth a substential extord kneth for suppettine «a not

hean contrel Leet of the Whe Phe enternal constr

them ef the warble tomtiunce conted seen in LIGUKE
Has lent col te that wor om PHGURES 2 © of the haw.
mes The shaft §@ can be provided wath a flat wirface $7
on the shart may Be cyhadirical as shown in DIGURE &
of the drwwines When a bong shift 66 is employed with
the howwng $4. the shaft @6 profersbty is pron witha
ceumfercatul pramsec 67 for rvcnme a C-woher
in ordet to resteat moses cat of the shalt and pres at
dhamave te the supporor, member 26 and the driver
if an eneesnve aval fone os applad to the shaft

The operanen of the present invention will readily be
undcrstee "om wew of the detailed deonphon ucluded
atone. and ee furthor dcusaen « inchaled herewah.
tr wall be appre. sted that the termenats 23a and 24 may
te of were or set bbe mialcreal for cletinally connecting
the settle teemtume contre! §@ inte the cu.an

Whale there hes been dhistivted and dew nibed what is
ot present Comndred to be oo preferred embodiment of the
pasent imenton and a ack modihcaten thereof, at
vt be app cated that nemerous changes vod modifica-
tors ate hely te ogcan te there shelled in the art, and
it entented un the opp.aded clams to cover all those
changes ant modifications which fall within the true
sport and scope of the present invention

The mventen claimed :.

1. A vatable nes done contral compireing 4 hollow
oVbadrical heerung bovine a coatrally apertured closure
wll atone end thereof ont apen at the other end thereof,
a drwer diyposed in the howing boing a Mlance spaced
from the inner surface of the cylindrical howwng, a sup-
Porting member clovng the orca end of the cshindncal
hoewing. the inner sulf.ne of the supporting member fric-
tionally engucing a peephers! bp of the Mance of the
driver, a fesstance clement dispowed on the supporting
member. a contact assembly secured within the flunge of
the driver and disposed above the supporting member,
the contact asscmbly borne provided with a contact but-
ton adapted for wiping the rewsionce clement at any de
sire | point intermediate the ends thereof, means extending
throwch the aperture of the clove wall and rotatable
from the extenor of the hows for altering the relitive
Potion between the contactor and the resistance clement,
ond means for connecting the centrol to an electrical
corewit.

2. In a variable resistance control, the combination of
a housing having a centrally apertured closure wall with

the housing, a molded cup-shaped driver encle ed in the

3. In variate resistance unit, the combination of a
houseng having a fing flance and open at the bottom,
a bose clang the bottom of the housing, a fevivtance
film bonded to a surface of the hase, a cup-shaped driver

T. rotatably supported on the bse, a perpheral lip extend-

E-6

3,237,140

7

ing from the cup hoped drwer sek oly cnpaging the
base, means clectin silly comme tone the fevntome been te
the extetar of the bewung. a Content ascorbly trecdly
Sccuted to the cup st oped diivet ond 4 fotutable ome ons
extending through on operture in the hewmng ond engure-
able with means prownded in the bottom: wall of the Cop
shaped diver where+y rotation of the rotatable meunms
Wip|es a contact bution of the Contact assembly across the
festance film intermediate the cads thereof

@ Anclectrical contin comprare o hollow oy hindi ot
housing having 4 chest cad and on open end, the closed
end heme provaded with an aperture, « bese mounted in
the open ond of the cylindraal howung, a cup shiped
driver fotutably supported on the buse, a resistance cle-
ment fixedly mounted to the Pic, a contict awembly
mounted im the cup shaped driwer vd imclabey a comtuci
button adopted for wipung the resistonee clement ot any
desited Pont micomedinte the ends thereot, and a shut
eviending throurh tie aperture of the howong for nat
me the driver, a memcircular member ottache Jt to the sh ft.
the top surface of sant cup-shaped driver being prov ahd
with 4 momcwculor covity having disposed therem the non.
crrculat member attached to the shult, the ether end of
the shaft extendin- through the aperture om the 6) hdr ol
howung whereby rotation of the shult alters the fetta
of the driver and the powhun of the Contact button on the
tewstame clement

SA Comtoct asaolly for oe soccble fest Mee control
having a driver. a collector button. and o tesitame cle
ment, the contact assembly comproing a bie o longue
eviending from the base and provaded with on op mene
for centering the wontact asembly on the diver of the
control, a paw of spaced tab depending from the bux
for fixedly ccurme thy anculie peutiom of the cont at
aswel) wath respect te the der a resersy boot taper
connected to the hoe for encuging the colhctor button of
the vatible revitance control, and a fou of bifurcated
arcuate army catending from the baw to a port diumet-
really opposite the tae, the distal ends of the arcuote
areas Reng pounced to each other to provide meany for sup
Porting a carbon comtat button. the carbon Contact but
ton beg adopted to wipe the nanune clement Jdiepowd
wm the control

6 A drwer for a sanuble revistume control haveng a
supporting member, a tesstame choment carned by the
epperting member. 4 contact osm) proveded wath «
Pet of tabs and eny gong the nw tome clement. ond o
shaft, the diner compre 4 coculot memnn haven a
top sutiace and a hettom serfae the top sufmae of the
corcalar member home prow ds with o Caray few teen
wing the distal ond of the shalt, a bow Scared to the Potter
surface for centering the Contat ucmbly of the Contre,
and 4 couler flies wntegialls «cuted to the caculor
member and hasine « pemphers! hp un frtwnal encape.
ment with the supporting meme of the contrat the
flange Rome provek J wath a put of spacd slots for re
Comong (Re paet of tbs of the Contact acm) to teenies
the awwembly woth the drwer

7 In a sotiible rest me. met, the pombunation of 4
Pow busine u soe forenmtially oviending shoukdeor, 4 te-
“etme choment doped on sad hase. 4 sup shape
drovet hosing «4 downw aidly directed fonge the bp portion
thereof heme in trtonal engagoment wah the Corona
ferontaally ertomd: re sboael kot eon the * "Kv rt 8 19S?) Atnmemet ol...
DEM HED & 198 DD hem ot al
Pe7e 419 8 989) etd e.s
toga 7°19! Mus her "
ee, a0 7 1908 Muon ctl _.

WiC PE NRID AE WOKD Pricey F ccminer.

ti ty
tt 64
‘™! ta
ti ima
tem. Jor
tix fea XN
tem 174
tim 164
tie tat
tims 174k

F-1

F-2
”
APPENDIX “F March 26,1968 4. VAN BENTHUYSEN ETAL 3,375,478
ELCCTRICAL CONTROL AND METHON OF MAKING THE SAME
March 26, 1968 J VAN BENTHUYSEN ET AL 3,375,478 Filed May 11. 1964 2 Sheets-Shee’ .
ELECTRICAL CONTROL AND WETHOD OF MAKING THE SAME

Filed May 11. 1964

2 Sheets-Shee’ ;

LM,
ANN

77,
Vs
ZA

xT . . GA

‘ . i
7 -- 7,
Ba FIGURE 3.
ae
>
2
- |
\ebeil
246 “T
FIGURE 2 WVENTORS

F-3

United States Patent Office

3,375,478
Patented Mar. 26, 1968

ii
t

T
!

efaciured must meet miny design and test requirements.
for example, the shaft must he rotutaMe om a substantially
mennet, and the fiat of lubrnant in the hear

Must not impore a sudsisntial losd upon the shaft ot

@ whnormal imperatures wr flow out of the bearing ut
' thevated temperatures. It is wcll known that several ma
ferals sah as nylon are ecient bearing forming ma-
tertals uance these materials need not be lubriated with «

ef
x3

Sration, however, requires that the shafts
be

ia

ih
a

33

rtf
aU 2
een:
HAt
Fitri

ft
F
;
:
i
:
i

fir
:
Pf
gi3*
srfih
8? j
4 t

ft could be unproved
the cont of the control ht would, therefore,
to provide a variaMe rewstance control having

frill
2

i
i

2
>
z
z
ef
2
2
z
i

edfel
lia
Heth
Hi
Hilt ;
ia

*

‘@

manulature of a variable resistance control. the method
of oMtaimung the proper sotational torque hus heen ac-
comp 'rhed a the same munner as eth metol shafts. lt
sould, therefore. Ne destate to provide improved means
tur Msittanng ihe proper rotsuional torque by presiress-
ing the mykon shaft during the process of assembling the
vatieMe routume contiol

The wonsentiunsl variadle rewstance control generally
employ, a rotsterlc coniactor fiacdly secured to the ro
tate member, 10. the driver. As the wae of the control
de: tcaxes. grewter protdome ale are encountered in .on-
Miamng the .ontstor ty totute eith the driver, More-
over, the devietion m contact pressure of the contactor
verses imversely erth the sive of the contactor time the
conta: a9 wcll a the other parts of the control are
made eb tandad maonul.«iurng tolerances ty main-
tain com 4f 8 minimum. Thus there is a tendency for a
greater differential im contact preswres to cxist against
the resistume clement and the collector ring. lt would,
therefore. also be de-wadle to provide @ varable resis-
lame cuntrol wah unproved means for consissining the
sMtator tu retate wath the driver as well as employ a
suntator having Mwan, tor cqualizing the contact pres-
wwes IN 2 Prewt tulw agua the revetance clement and
the collector ring.

Accordingly, & 1s an object of the present invention to
provide a new and improved vaniuble resstance control
having the sanous devradle features tet forth above.

Anvther object of tLe prevent invention is to provide
4 variole revsieme control witb a shaft of an elec-
traally comeonductive heatdefurmate maternal, the end
thereof heing se.aged tu secure the shaft to the mounting
bracket and to imicsse the dismeter of the shaft in the
Roaring supporting the shift.

An «hhtwnsl oop .t of the presont invention is to pro-
vade « vartahle tetume cuntrul of smple and compact
streumsture with a rotatable member having an integral
shaft rotataBl: mm «a bearing and an additonal annular
hearing oqually sp.wed from the shaft and dispened within
2M afvust feitume clement for cleminsting tbe wobdble-
nevs of the rutatab’e member as a os rotated.

A further object of the present revention ss to provide a
variable rewstance .ontrl wherein the inner penphery of
the collector ming functions as a bearing for rotutably
supporting a shaft and the outer periphery of the coliccior
ling aligns the baw of the control supporting the arcuaic
tevistame clement in comentri: relationship with the
shaft

Seill another obyect of the present invention is to pro-

* wide a vateable revintame contre! with an at.uate cavity

im the inner surface of the rotatable member for neviedly
supporting 8 cont.xtor and for constraining the contactor
te) rotate with che rotatable member.

Yet ; nother object of the prevent invention is to pro-

S* wide « variate resistance control with a collector ring im

tegrally connected to and embowed from 4 mounting
bracket

A sull further object of the prevent invention is to pro-
vide a variable resitance control of simple and compact
Structure embodying a contactor provided with a pair of
ametric ally opposed pivotal arms for equalising the con-
tact pressures im a preset ratio appled by the contacts of
the Lontactor again the arvust

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1659%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.