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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_2042%3A2

## Record

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

## Text

A-l
APPENDIX “A”
In the

Gnited States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 75-1100

CTS Corporation,
Plaintiff-A ppellee,
Vv.
Prser INTERNATIONAL CoRPORATION and

Pinger Socrepap ANONIMA,
Defendants-A ppellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 72 C 1891
Juuius J. Horrman, Judge

Arcvren Junr 11. 1975 —Decipen DrcemBer 17, 1975

Before Cuark, Associate Justice (Retired)*, STEevENs,
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.

1 Patent No. 3,518,604 on “Electrical Component” issued to appellee
as assignee of Beaver and Van Benthuysen on June 30, 1970, pursuant
to application filed February 12, 1968.

2Patent 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.

ERR

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 contro]. The ’285 patent
describes a mechanical assembly which uses a metallic
collector—an essential component of the control—as the
base of the housing.

The principal issues on appeal 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-
lic 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

3Patent No. 3,375,478 on “Electrical Control And Method of Making
the Same” issued to appellee as ee of Van Benthuysen and Barden
on March 26, 1968, pursuant to application filed May 1i, 1964.

#35 U.S.C. § 102(b) provides that a person shall be entitled to a

patent unless the invention was “. . . on sale in this country, more

one year how to the date of the application for patent in the
United States.

535 U.S.C. 101 provides that one who “invents or discovers any
new and Pp machine, manufacture, or composition ” matter,
or any new and improvement thereof, may obtain patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

*35 USC. § 112 provides, in part:

“The specification shall contain a written description 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
clan Gee th Ger ba te GAs OS perce or ath wae &

CREON LILLE SED LANE LELELELEL ILE NIGEL OE ILI EL OTE ERE ELEE ECL TH SNE
‘

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-
mrent, 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 designs
they are enclosed within a dust excluding housing. The
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
forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying
out his invention.”
735 US.C. § 102(c) provides that a person shall be entitled to a
patent unless “he has abandoned the invention, ... .”
®Piher Sociedad Anonima.
*Piher International Corporation, an Illinois corporation with offices
in Park Ridge, Illinois,

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 the question whether Piher’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.
The issues on eer therefore, involve the validity of

‘604 and °285 and 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 cne 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

ny Corporation has its principal place of business in Elkhart,

11 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.
12Patent No. 3,237,140 on “Variable Resistance Control” issued on

Febuary 22, 1966, to CTS as assignee of Barden and Snyder pursuant
to application filed on May 20, 1963, -

NPIS PERLE CAUTION ANALY ALOR PSHE STINET

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 ’604 the flared bearing is designed to per-
form the additional dust excluding function, a function
not 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-
plicity suggests that the enlarged portion of the shaft may
be 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
a 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

*3In "478 what we refer to as a “flared bearing” is actually described
as an “enlarged portion” of the shaft. (See column 4, lines 34-38; it is
element 3le in Figs. 1 and 3.)

Claim 1 of '604, which reads as follows was allowed only after
an amendment which added the italicized ;

“1. A variable resistance control comprising a dust excludi
housing ha a plurality of walls, a base closing the housing a
forming a thereof, an aperture in one of the walls, a driver
supported by the housing for rotation relative thereto, resistance
means supported within the housing, and a contactor bm gy
engaging the resistance means and constrained to rotate with the
driver, the driver comprising a body portion and a barrel integral
with the body portion, the barrel extending through the aperture

A-6

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

Il.

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
attention 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 a
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
attention 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

14 (Continued)

repeatedly em-
the specifications. See, eg. Col. I, lines 17, 44-56, 69-70;

CTS cited Patent No. 3,215,303 on “Closure for Openi in the
Walls of Electrical Outlet Boxes and the Like” (see ——— column
2, lines 59-69) and Patent No. 3,099,057 on “Retaining ners” (see
especially column 4, lines 12-19).

Be a ae pe ee ek ea oe a
\

A-7

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

Il,

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 CTS
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 patent,
not with any particular embodiment—even the preferred
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,

Pilier’s sceond 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

1° The phrase “infringement of a patent” is somewhat misleading since

it is the claims of the patent which define the boundaries of the patent
t. See Deller's Walker on Patents, 2d Ed., §509, p. 165. Al

ere are situations in which the scope of the claim per be limited
by construing it in the light of the specifications, see McClain v. Ort-
mayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424, we see no reason why the portions of the
claim describing the use of the flared bearing to seal in ee
in the housing should be limited by a description in the specifications
relating to another wall of the housing.

os oe ae ¥ ee ae wae Raat eM rele
NOTRE SEF SES PERL POOLS RARE ION EE PAGER a x

A-8

opening in the top of its housing, and that the flared bear
ing seals only one of the two holes.” Tt would seem to
follow that the housing was not designed to exclude dust.
In contrast, the “G04 device has only one opening in its
housing and the ‘604 clauns refer to “an aperture in one
of the walls” and deseribe the location of the flared bear-
ine with reference to the periphery of “the aperture,”

It ix not the fact that the Piher device has two holes
rather than only one that casts doubt on the infringement
finding; for surely if both holes were sealed with flared
hearings, 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-
ocally 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 redue-
ing the number of parts,'’ and the contaetor is pinched

17 Actually, in the trial court Piher’s theory of noninfringement
a oy to have been that its flared bearing did not even seal one
of the holes. The district court rejected that theory and we do not
understand appellants to pursue it on appeal.

*See 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
ge a as a cover for the housing.” Col. 1, lines 73-75; column
, line 1.

1 ETN ERIE R ILENE MH INERT HM Neg WEARS AL REL

A-9

between the collector and the resistance element which are
in parallel planes, thereby maintaining a more constant
preteure 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
resistance control with the contactor pinched between the resistance
element and the collector to thereby maintain ualized contact
gee on the resistance element and collector.” umn 2, lines
13-17.
Both of the features mentioned in the text are identified in claim 1 of
the '285 patent which reads as follows:

“1. A variable resistance control comprising a housing defined
by a skirt and an end wall integral with said skirt, a resistance
element lying in a plane and supported flatwise against the end
wall of said housing, a collector supported by said skirt and having
a diameter slightly larger than diameter of the resistance
element and closing one end of the housing, said collector being
provided with an aperture, said collector being substantially flatwise
and lying in a plane in spaced parallel relationship to said plane
po aero said resistance element, a contactor rotatable about an
axis and positioned between said resistance element and said
collector, and driver means for rotating said contactor whereby
upon rotation of said driver means said contractor wipingly a
said resistance element and said collector, said collector rotatably
supporting said driver means in said aperture.”

* These features were plainly identified in the a and exhibits
presented by plaintiff's expert witness in su of the claim that
the PT-15 trimmer infringed the '604 patent. course, as CTS argues,
the fact that the trimmer which Piher was marketing at the time
the litigation was commenced contained the same features as those
discussed by the '285 patent does not necessarily prove that earlier
models of the trimmer contained the same features. However, en
examination of the Piher patent eppceation filed in the United States
on July 28, 1969, claiming the benefit of filing dates of July 30, 1968,
and & 13, 1968, for corresponding Spanish | together with
testimony in the record, strongly indicates that these essential features
were embodied in Piher’s device from its inception.

LOTTO NLS TOR IIMA I Ti PF GD

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
be 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 from 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

"1" 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 United States, or... .”

SMTP R TEI IRR eT RATE RE HIN NEI CRP RRS NE

A-11

precisely have referred to a device embodying or disclos-
ing the invention. In any event, the defense is most fre-
quently asserted on the basis 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 patentee more than a year before the filing
date. Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp., ...... F.2d
wu » 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 category 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.,
461 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., Amphenol Corp. v. General Time ‘
(7th Cir. 1968); Frantz Mfg. Co. v. Phenix Mfg. Co., F.2d 314 (7th

OO. 0.0 ....» No. 73-1900 (7th Cir, N 12, 1
24“The policy underlying the ‘on sale’ bar is to t an inventor
from holding back the secrets of his invention general public

knowledge while at the same time exploiting it commercially
thereby extending the duration of his legal monopoly.” The Red
Cross Mfg. Corp. v. Toro Sales Co., supra, slip op. at 6.
See, also, Frantz Mfg. Co. v. Phenix Mfg. Co., supra, F.2d at 320.
2°Since the “on sale” issue was raised by Piher’s counterclaim, it is
not actually a “defense” in this case; however, since the issue is
normally raised by the defendant, it seems appropriate to follow the
practice of referring to it as a defense.

— ——— — —s pha
— ATH CARRERE ETN PEIN AR LIE PERE TRAN SIN TTD, NEL ARTE OF NI

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 ers 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, 1969. 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
Gunar 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

26See cases cited in n. 23, supra.

27 “MR. WYSS: I object to the so-called offer of proof for a
number of reasons. First of this device, acco: to the
received by him on

witness’ own testimony, was — it was —

RTS FS LOS PRS FS

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 Klass, 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 offered 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 therefore, under the provisions
of Rule 43(E) not admissible on any ground.

MR. ROHRBACK: (C).

ese 8

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, together with the rotor, and we also
see the resistive element with the two terminals attached to
them internally.

Q Where is the resistance element?

A The resistance element is mounted within the plastic body,
cavity and is retained by a terminal on both sides.

Q Where was the contactor with respect to the resistive element
and the collector when you opened up?

A The contactor is —

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)

Ditnnerssnecsesseencensennene EE LEIS LENE LRAT NN

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.”

2°The misnamed “best evidence” rule is found in Rules 1002, 1003,
and 1004 of the new Federal Rules of Evidence. Since the excluded
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 original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair
to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.”

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

“".. a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
onto. or from the same matrix, or by means of photography,
including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or elec-
tronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original.”

We find no basis in the record for questioning the authenticity of
the purchase order. At the time the purchase order was offered, a
Motorola employee, Adams, was on the stand and in the offer of
proof testified 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 first 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 ry
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.

3o“By Mr. Jones:

Q Mr. Klass, I hand you Defendant’s Exhibit 48 and ask you
to describe it from its visual appearance from the exterior.

A It is a PT type — PT-15 Piher molded housing potentiometer,
has our production part number on it, has our test lab number
4 test tag on it, has a molded-in Piher Spain name on it.

Q Can you tell us what parts are visible 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.

Q Is there an doubt in your mind, Mr. Klass, as to whether
or not that is the 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 That is my testimony. That is the device I removed from

my —

THE COURT: Did you hear the question?

THE WITNESS: Please read it.

(Question read.)

A There is no doubt in my mind.” (Tr. 1598-1599)
For discussion of identification and chain of custody of “Real” evidence
in civil cases see Admission of Demonstrative Evidence, 61 Nw ULR
472, 478-479 (1966).

RR ONE RE IP DRE TIAL IS ERE a PEN RTI NS ES
4

A-15

As CTS argues, the record 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

rove that the device which Motorola received in the

nited States in April of 1969 disclosed the ’285 invention.
Moreover, Klass’ testimony about the tests performed
under his direction, together with evidence that these
devices were shipped from Barcelona on March 3, 1969,
was sufficient to justify the inference that the Piher control
had been reduced to practice prior to the critical date.”
Thus, the erroneous evidentiary rulings prevented Piher
from presenting a possibly meritorious defense.*

; M
Hearsay in Nonjury Cases, 1970, 83 Harv. Vv.
32 We have not found it necessary to decide whether error was
committed in the exclusion of the written in Spanish

by the
former ident of Piher describing sales activities in the United
States during early 1969. Our disposition of the case will enable

on direct examination, the of those tests is really
of no relevance if it is assumed that $S evidence was ad te
to sustain a finding that the devices tested had left 's
factory in a completed form prior to the critical date.

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
eost 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 imvention 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 abandonment, cf. Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. v. Ram Golf
Corp., ........ iy , No. 74-2024 at 6 (7th Cir., Oct. 20,
1975), but if the application is promptly filed and dili-
ntly 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 Popiel 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.

A true Copy:
Teste:

FOR ER EE EE EEE EEE TEETH EEE EEE E EEE EEE TEESE TREES EEE EEEEEEE EEE EE EE HEHE EES

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 Judge***

No. 75-1100
CTS CORPORATION, a corporation,
Plaintiff-A ppellee,
Uv.
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 Ilinois, 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,
v.

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
patent cases is conferred on the District Courts by 28
U.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 Illinois 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, plaintiff 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

. _— eS ee >Re Cet Te
ESL, 2 LESLIE LTE. NS ER LILO LVL LISS:

PEE AE LEIA DELO LL OO LLG OPIE DE, IRM

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
Balil resided in Spain. The managing director of Piher
served as the PSA managing director for the United

ate
ATs IRIAN RR Goma He OSES

C-3

States. Customers apparently dealt with officers of
Piher not in their capacity as officers of Piher, but as
representatives of PSA. 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 plaintiff's 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

get
ee a Se HIRI LINER EL EBL, 8 AE RETL LE ETE TOT A TIS a

C-4

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

While defendants did not refute this testimony es-
tablishing the similarity between plaintiff's claims and
the elements of defendants’ PAB 15 controls, they did
argue that no infringing act occurred in the United
States after the '478 patent was issued on March 18,
1968.

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 the 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.

271.

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.

REDLINE BOS LEIA ONE SOON PASSER TREN MP OI oe

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 substantially 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 Subelassified 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
c= apes 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 2 panel and
thereby position the control shaft of the component at
a definite distance from the panel;

[2] terminals for the component a er
substantially perpendicularly to and yond said
plane of the panel engaging surfaces of said
abutments whereby said terminals are adapted to
— holes in a panel upon which the abutments seat;
an

[3] snap-in fingers 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 — on the panel with its control shaft and
— s properly positioned with respect to the pan-

el.

PG en FE EE SENET SAGE OE IA SPIE en ORR ATTA SONA

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

;
ty
2 gent

C-7

on defendants’ Pl’ 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. § 103, 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(e1)(b), 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
rg States No. 2,790,961; Hathorn United States No. 2,-
486.

The ground for the objection was that each of the patents
was issued after ‘027 was filed. Additionally, no foundation
was laid. Plaintiffs counsel offered to withdraw the objection
if, prior to filing post trial memoranda, defendants’ counsel
could offer assurance that the applications for the patents
were not substantially changed during their prosecution.
pier 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 purpose 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).

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 5.3.

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 containers or inserts. The plain-
tiff alleges infringement of '604 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,
rec aan counterclaim for declaratory judgment of in-
validity.

’ 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 engaging surfaces of said
abutments whereby said terminals are a apted 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.”

BP RARE NILE EOL BONE CIEE TERR IT AT

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 because of insufficient qualifications
as an expert on electronic components. See 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 cornponent 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.

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 pages 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 plaintiff's 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 show the sale date

(Footnote continued on following page)

|
¥
1G = "
_ ORS LTPP ES EG SL BA OR GI ELE EE POTS RRR RAD

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, plaintiffs 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.

5 Continued ; ;
of the my eegors or the date of placement in public use.
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-
terrogatory 60 to establish date of sale or public use is mis-
placed. That set of interrogatories related to antitrust issues
no longer in the case, not sales of hollow shaft controls.

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 produced 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-

RAS LOY PTET RRR Ge TS BIT GE ARN GET GE INL TG N OEMS A

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-
necessary, 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. Imperial 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. 1 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

é — — WB AE YE ETERS NOL thy ALLEL IITOD
LB IR EINE AE LENO LE LET IE LOLA ETE LED INET LE IER

D-1

APPENDIX “D”

June 30, 1970 T R. BEAVER ETAL 3,518,604

ELECTRICAL COMPONEN?

Filod Feb. 12, 1968

INVENTORS
THOMAS R. BEAVER

eens JOHN D. VAN BENTHUYSEN
FIGURE- 5 ev QBaglee

aT Ge

BLURRED
Dis Ss an exphaded siew of the sariiMe fesmtince con
trol of PiGs To wath parts Broken away. ond the Base ro
tated PSO" to show the resistance path FIG Sas an po
Meta view oof movable Conteel operate means used
mthe cootolof biG bo amt biG 6 es an Bometrn sew
Of a omtastute Sanahle resetance comtrol boang snap mn
terminal means and emtbadhing our mention

Refernog now more pattcolely to the drawings. a
sateebhe restamce Control embyalyung one form of the
mvcotonas generally atentifad bx the refereme numeral
WO As best shown on BIGGS * mt othe Control 10 Coun
poees a dust cuchating howunge PE a rotatebly supported
contoad aporston gets i the form of a diner ER oa
Pas bhe contacter PS Comat te netiate with the diaves
$2 by the sea has the

teenie of watorba bh ee tes

Bae 6 0S cat thee detec tet oeeetee fe am the Con
tate ont a hee amb 87 Wah nteteme to bis
J theooeh S at wll iw sccm in tthe diner 82 compres 4

-

w

4

(Pra Cid ee | ee Oe
wth a si ate DO bere tote te Petre nit on
foto ol Medea pertictian bb 22 estomdin ys throwen
stare Dhan bea A best ste wan FIG,
a deal portamiet the Bact Mer bata atly oe the
esterd Pades of the apertore 24 te form a Miaed toi,
24 posed oem tae face ef the Rowsing and te form
a duet exutadiae seal acount the poaphery Of Me ager
ture ZR Ny hobdire the diese EP Mendy panned ome sty
ef the beg ne othe cmt 26 of the skeet 27 tcc FIGS
Vint Ys whe the be ate 36 8 bere forined accent ig
eppote ste af the feat the deren a te tithy —
Dhol woth the Renee PE ent any temedeties for anret mone
ment ot tte Parnl 22 oth

vated b

ate shy

ge ortne BB as seh iealty
the oc tren ef the poe et appeased bec ngs
ol set ose the bea aie

Mitesh the Poreel 23 os Mated at the dhetal poron
thereat ot wall Bec apres dy tit tte (at at is enaly
May that opposed bearing cilaces eternal woth the
diet coat wath Corte spamdhing oppencd Db atete contaces
cartied by the he Hho. the sheet 23 oe wall ot tie

pone

pesto fe Pcs a COS CO er Pe Lorod
hore te provide oo pan ot st Mohs op
pened Beatoes suttaes cared by ott th,
barsed ones have oe Dead portent co the form of a hoy ng

feng. coasting wath the Recroae en the besescme Bt wll he
apptectited that whom the tetas bane on the
fiat a cme eg betas be nee suthaces of
the agritorod wall the fhe ene come om tte hu ref
reeey ba be epteed hee . cod then
eppert moe phice me the staters ary Beary Alton wh,
“aye ef the deer aid beecne ome be accompli dod
Wy teertabere the Paateeb ae pensetes nm the aperture amd beat
yom othorwnse deform a penpheral peruon of
oho te teem 6 Mated Dearie counting wath the
eee bea fered on the oesem

Neve having tofereme ome asain te the embodiment
OF PUGS 2 amt bt wall be appre rited that the Maved
Portion of the bar h £2 1 chartered by wvetal dew
ahs operational cha etistics | More spec tically. the
out srface JO of the Meret poten St forms a dust
culating seal wath the Doosan, provndes an annular
hearing 24 for retanon of the dren 12 relative wo ihe
howe TF creates fratronal restame to rotivon of
the diver §2 By reason of the frgnom between bea ing
24 and the Rousing. and provates a self centering gue
wa fora net shown control idiot tool when sinh tool
ws rpserted on the tool reveming stot 32° The integrity of
the scal. resistance to awal movement of the barre! and
fer tonal resistance to rotation in the illustrated embod
ment ate attamame Py reason of vanous structural inter.
relationships Between the driver 12 and the housing I!
bor example, the outer dhameter of the barrel 22 is
preferably selected relate to the inner diameter of the
surface SS of the

S

ow

—

‘
|
|

E-

5

3,237,140

the area defined by the downwardly eriending Munce 41
of the driver 4@ and the top surface of the supporting
member 20, and, av explained shove, the friction hetwcen
the peripheral lip 44a of the Mange 41 of tin crivce 40
end the supporting member 26 present. the dinar from
heing madvertently roictcd by centelupal fcc on the
hhhe with respect to the supporting member 24 li to
be understood that a portion of the driver con faction
ally engage the inner wall of the cylindrical men cr 22
In the illustrated arrangement, means must te pro-
vided for rotating the driver extermally of the housing
Obviously, a suitable tool, eg. a «rewdiiwer. can be
imectied imto the aperture 18 of the howwne EL for
operatively engaging the top surface of the drive 40
Under such conditions, however, additional me ins woul!
be necessary for rotatably supporting the end of the
driver most remote from the supporting member 20 Hy
Providing the top surface of the driver 40 with a non-
cwcular cavity 48 (see FIGURE $ of the davies) and
by providing the end of the shatt $@ with a conficuiation
ry to the cavity 48. ic. @ momo lar mem.

ber, the circular portion $2 of the shaft journaled in the
aperture 9S of the closure wall $3 of the heswine a’so
rotataMy supports the driver 40. Moreover, the end of

the shaft S@ can he inserted into the cavity 48 of the 2

driver 4@ in a simple and facile manner Whoa th:
control 10 it provided with a short shaft £0. a stot S1
is inserted im the end thereof Accordingly. the shaft
$@ transfers the rotational torque applied from the ex

terior of the housing to the driver 40 interior of the :

housing and. at the same tine, fOtatably supports one
end of the driver in the housing. By detachably sccusine
the shaft $@ to the driver in accord with the present in-
vention, it is possible to avsemble quickly wariab'c resist-
ance controls with various types of external shafts and
Prevent foreign maticr, eg. tures and the like. fiom
enicring the cavity of the driver encloving the contact
assembly and th: resistance element

_ When operating the variable resistance control 10, it
iy preferable that some means be emploved to howt the
angular rotation of the driver 40 and the contact as-
sembly 3@ mounted thereto. Otherwise, the carbon but.
ton 3 will show rapid wear when wiped over the ter-
minal ends of the resistance element in the preferred
form of the invention, the housing W118 is provided with a
Slop means, ¢.p.. a downwardly extending projection such
aS a stop pin 87 (sce FIGURE 2) for limiting the rotation
of the driver 40. As the shaft $@ is rotated. a stop mem-
her $3, as best scen in FIGURE 6 of the diawines, en-

Rapes the stop pin 17 and prevent. further rotation of +

the shaft $@ and the driver 40° Since the shaft $0 is of
a hard material, for example, stcel, and the stop mem-
her $3 is an integral part thereof, inadvertent excessive
force will not shear the stop member $3 from the shaft
5@ or the stop pin 17 from the housing 11. Moreover,
since the stop member $3 is integrally connected to the
shaft, the strength of the connection between the shaft
and the driver is immaterial. A notch 28 (see FIGURE
1) provided in the supporting member 2@ engages an in-
wardly extending detent 29 in the housing for orientating
the member 2@ with the siop pin #7.) Thus the stop pin
17 siways halts the angular rotation of the driver 40 when
the carbon button 36 of the contact assembly 30 reaches
the end of arcuate resistance film 22

In order to maintain the supporting member 20 fixedly
‘ecured against the shouller 16 of the housing 11, a
ground plate 18 as seen in FIGURES 2 ard 3 of the draw-
ings is disposed against a portion of the bottom surface
of the supporting her and the contig portion of
the cylindrical member 12 of the housing. c.g.. by welding
the ground plate 18 to the housing. If st iy desirable to
seal the unit, a nonconductive cpory coment 19 is pouret
into the cavity defined by the bottom surface of the sup-
Porting member 20 and the lower portion of the inner
wall of the cylindrical member 12. In some applications,

——

it ts preferable to ground the housing to various circuit
components of the he Consequently. one or more not
shown depending terminals are provided with the ground
plite 18

The embuahment scon un HIGUKD § of the drawines is

sab sentially the wane os the embodunent of FIGURE F,
the main dflecence boing that the housing §4 1 provided
whoa threaded portion §8) anda shoft $6» provided
woth a substental extrnol kength for supporting a not
hewn control heeb onthe Whe Phe internal comstiug-
tron ef the sanuble fosistance conteal seen in TIGURE
Kan wleateal te that wean PIGURES 2 6 of the draw.
mys The shaft §@ Gan be provided woth a flat surface $7
on the shart may be cylindrical as shown in PIGURE
of the drowines, When a long shift 66 1s employed with
the howsung $4. the shuft 66 preferably ix provedked with a
suuinferential proose 67 for recone a C-washer 68
i order to festrat mower ent of the shaft and prevent
dlamave to the supporory ember 20 and the driver 46
fan exnessve aul fore i applad to the shaft

The operation of the presem invention will readily be
undertone) om wew of the detailed desorption munluded
above. and ne further Aiscusaen mn included herewah.
It will be appre.sotod that the termunals 28a and 24 may
beoof ware or scuteble muatcral for clectocally Connecting
the veriebte tesstame control 10 inte the cucu

Wilule there has been dhistioted and dessnbed what is
at present comsadcred to be a preferred embodiment of the
Paseat invention and a sack modification thercef, at
wall be appre coted that nemerous changes and modifica-
toms ate Dhely to ogcur te there skilled in the art, and
ito intended on the appoaded chums to cover all those
changes and modifications which fall within the true
spirit and scope of the present invention

The invention claimed i.

VA satiable res. tance control comprising a hollow
Viindtieal howsng bavine a centrally apertured closure
wall atone end thereof snd open at the other end thereof,
a dover diypesed in the howing basing a Mance spaced
from the inner surface of the evliadrical housing. «a sup-
Porting member clowng the open end of the covlindncal
housing. the inner sutface of the supporting member fric-
tionally engacing a peopheral lip of the flance of the
driver, a resistance clement disposed on the supporting
member. a contact assembly secured within the flunge of
the driver and dispose above the supporting member,
the contact assembly being provided with a contact but-
ton adapted for wiping the resistance clement at any de-
Sire | point intermediate the ends thereof, means extending
throuch the aperture of the closure wall and rotatable
from the exterior of the housing for altering the relative
Po.tion between the contactor and the resistance clement,
and means for connecting the control to an electrical
corenit.

2. In a variable resistance control, the combination of
a housing having a centrally apertured closure wall with
a downwardly directed peripheral flange to define a cover
open at the bottom, « supporting member closing the bot-
tom of the housing, means for securing the member to
the housing, a molded cup-shaped driver encloed in the
housing, « peripheral lip of the cup shaped diiver slide-
ably engaging the supporting member, a contact assembly
disposed within the cup shaped driver, a resistance ele-
ment mounted onto a surface of the supporting member,

5 said contact assembly including a contact adapted for wip-

ing the resistance element at any desired point inter-
niediate the ends thereof, and means extending through
the apertured closure wall of the housing and operatively
connected to the driver for rotating the driver and the
contact mounted therein.

3. In variable resistance unit, the combination of a
housing having a depen:ting flange and open at the bottom,
a base closing the bottom of the housing, a resistance
film bonded to 4a surface of the base, a cup-shaped driver
rotatably supported on the base, a peripheral lip extend-

E-6

3,237,140

ing from the cup shaped driver stideably enyaging the
bate, means clectinally connec tiny the resistance filin te
the exterior of the housing, a contact assembly tively
secured to the cupsbaped driver and a fotatable meaty
extending through an aperture in the housing and engare-
able with means provided in the bottom wall of the cup-
shaped duver whereby rotation of the rotatable means
wipes a contact bution of the comact asembly acrow the
resistance film intermediate the ends thereof.

4 Anelectrical control compriving. « hollow cy lindsical
housing having « clos end and an open end, the closed
end being provided with an aperture, «a base mounted in
the open end of the cylindrixal housing, a cup-shaped
driver rotatably supported on the base, a resistance cle-
ment fixedly mounted to the base, a contact assembly
mounted in the cup-shaped driver and including a contact
button adopted for wiping the resistance clement at any
desited point intermedaste the ends thereof, and a sholt
extending through the aperture of the howsng for ett
ing the driver, a nencircular member attache! to the shaft.
the top surface of said cup-shaped driver being prow ated
with « noncitcular cavity having disposed therem the nen-
circular member attached to the shift, the other end of
the shaft extendin: through the apecture im the oy hindi al
housing whereby rotation of the shaft alters the position
of the driver and the position of the contact button on the
rewstance clement

$A contact ascmlly for c sanuble resstunce control
having a driver. a collector button, and a resi-tance cle-

ment, the contact assembly compreing a base. « tongue *

eviending from the base and proveded with an epenine
for centering the contact assembly on the diver of the
control, a pair of spaced tabs depending from the base
for fixedly securing the ancular position of the cont at
asveembly with respect te the diner a resenscty boat last
connected to the base |. encagmeg the collector button of
the variable resistance control. and a pan of bifurcated
arcuate arms extending from the ba to a point dismet-

20

fically opposite the bave, the distal ends of the arcucte |

arms being puncd to cach other to provide meany for sup-
porting a carbon contact button, the carbon contact but-
ton being adapted to wipe the resmance clement diepowd
in the control.

6 A driver for a variaMle resistance control having a
supporting member, a resistance clement carned by the
supporting member, a contact asscinbly provided with «
pour of tabs and coposing the tesetonce clement, and «
shaft, the diver comprising a cuculir member having a
top surface and a bottom surface, the top suifice of the

circular member beime provided with a cavity for tecen- oo

ing the distal end of the shaft. a bows scoured to the bottom
surface for centering the contact asembly of the control.
and a corcular flanre integrally secured to the cuculor
member and having « penpheral hp an frichenal encape-
ment with the supporting member of the control. the
flange being provided with a pur of spaced slots for re-
cerning the pair of tabs of the contact assembly to tepester
the assembly with the driver.

7 In a variable resistance unit, the combination ef a
base having a citcumferentially eatending shoulder, a te-
situnce clement divposed on suid base, a) cop shaped
driver having a downwardly directed Mange. the bp portion
thereof being in frictional engagement with the circum.
ferentially estemtiag shoulder on the bow, 4 contact awn
bly mounted in the cavity of the diver for electrically
wiping a button ocross the fesetunce element, a hollow
cylindrical howsing enclosing the diver and supported on
the base, the howe basing on end wall provaded with
# centrally located aperture. and rotatable means extend:
mg through the opetture and cocageable wilh a cavity
communicating wath the top surface of the driver.

8 An clectiical control comprising a housing provided
with spacad apart front and rear walls, ene of the walls
being provided with an aperture, a driver having a bear-
in: suiface, the bearing surface bemg in frictional en-

kagement with the inner surface of one of the wally of the.
houwwnr. an annuler tog of tehent material intermey, i
one of the walls of the housing and the driver for bisuns,
the driver agoiet the other wall of the housing, a cop.
tat asscoibly tivedly scoured to the driver. me vty top
making an electrical connection to the contact acmbly
a fesestonce clement diyposcd im the howung IMFCT ME Uhate.
the wally thereot and clectrigally connected tos puir of
termunals catending from the housing, 4 Contact bution,
inounted on the contact avembly and adupted for Wiping:
the reustance element at any desited pomt interinedigie.
the cads thereof, and means catcnding throuvh the afer.
fire amd rotatable from the catcror of the housing for
altering the relative position between the contact butiog,
and one end of the resistance clement

9 fo 4 variable resistance unit, the combination of a
sepperinags member provided with a supporting surface,
an atcuste festance means scoured to the supporting
surfice. a cup shaped driver supported by the supporting
surfece, a collector button centrally located and fixedly
secuted to the supporting member, a contact awembly
frvedly secured within a cavity of the cup-shaped driver
cmd oncludine a contact button for wiping the resistance
mcoms ot any dosited point intermediate the endy thercof
nda heager in electrical contact with the collector button,
« hellow cplmdinal Rowung provided with a centrally
Lportecd closure wall at one cad thereof and open at
the other end thereof for receiving the cup-shaped driver
ond the supporter member, revihent means dispored be-
tweca the ner surface of the closure wall of the housing
aml the cup-shoped driver tor bing the driver ogount
the supporting sustoce. means for fivedly securing the yup-
pertng -urfase wahin the howwng. and means operatively
comm tad to the enter surface ot the driver and en
pecsice trom th, exterior of the hou-ing for rotating the
cop hoped driver and the contact awembly through a
pres termned ante.

10 Ina variable resistance control, the combination of
a howunr provided wath an apertured end wail, a support
wet menbse mounted in one end of the housing in ypaced
nelotionstup to the apertured end wall, a circumferential
shoulder extembng inwardly of the supporting member
and unteytally connected thereto, a driver disposed in the
how ing intermediate the end wall and the supporting

, Momber and Raving one end rotatably journaled on the

coctintcrential shoubder, a detachably secured shaft jour-
noled in the apertuted end wall of the housing and ro
Latibly supporting the other end of the driver, and means
mounted to the dhuver for wiping a contact button imier-
mig bate the ents of a resistance element disposed im the
huveing. the means mounted to the driver being complete
Wh ciated from the end of the shaft.

11 In 3 variable resistance control, the combinstos
of a housing provided with an apertured end wall, a sup

, Porting member mounted im one end of the housing i@

spaced relotion-tup to the apertured end wall, a circum
ferent | shoulder extending inwardly of the supporting
mower and integrally connected thereto, a driver de.
posed in the housing intermediate the end wall and the
supporting member and having one end rotatably jour
nilet on the circumferential shoulder, a shaft journaled
im the apertured end wall of the housing and rotatably
supporting the other end of the driver, a resistance cle
ment wdhcred to the supporting member and encircled bY
the sucumferential shoulder, and a bifurcated contact

* soembis mounted to the driver and supporting a contact

button for wiping the resistunce clement intermediate
cots thereof,

12. Ina variable resistance unt, the combination of §
loved at ong end and opet
at base member closing the open end of
the bouwang. the housing being provided with a centrally
located aperture. a resistance clement disposed in the host
ing. a driver mounted in the housing, 4 sentact 2
.onstruned ty rotate with the driver, a shalt journakd ®

BLURRED COP

——

Saint Benet 0

E-7

3,237.140

the centrally located aperture. a stop pin, and a Liters!
evienwon integral with the shaft detining a step member
cnpageable with the stop pin for hiawcung rotation of the
shift te an angle of lew than Wor, 4 portion of the Literal
extenwon and of the shaft heing diaposed ina mating
cavily provaled in the driver comtraioing the diver to
tutate with the shaft

13) A variable tewstance unit compriving a hollow
howwng having an apertured Closure wall and 4 depond
ing Mange to define a cover open at the bottom. a diner
dispored in the howwng, a supporting member covered bs
the bottom opening of the housing, a resistance element
secured to the inner surface of the supporting member, a
contact assembly secured to the driver and rotatable there
with for wiping a contact bution along the resistance ele-
ment intermediate the ends thercof, a shalt extending
through the aperture. a stop pin, and a Lateral extension
integral with the shaft defining a stop member engipeatle
with the stop pin for limiting rotation of the shaft to an
angle of bess than 36°, the jower portion of the literal

ERS I TR ee

10
evicnsenm and of the shaft’ hong diaspoved im a mating
sity preveded in the diver comtraning the driver to
teate wath the stooft
Relerences (ited by the Faaminer
UC NITED STATES PATENES

Ae ee ee | : Vin 1X
. UK UY 9 tk Niles ite 164
J eit Sat S Vie Nialles ae te fad
"S76.008 EF P9St Rahmometal 2 tie IBEX
2b tb VoIMSs De Heil it Vin. WIN
> "KY 9 8 MST Atemanet al 0...) Uk dos X
Peto? TES Da hems ot al Vin G74 N\
PaTH IY 11989) Held Bek a Vin 164
Pogson 7°19) Mucher a Vik tnt
e499 7 et Mdon etal _- Vin 174 XK

RICHARD) M. WOOD. Primers IF waminer.

F-1
APPENDIX “F”

March 26, 1968 J VAN BENTHUYSEN ET AL 3,375,478

ELECTRICAL CONTROL AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
Filed May 11. 1964 2 Sheets-Sheet 1

FIGURE 3.

24b TT 2 24a

a §

aT NEY

| F-2

March 26, 1968 45. VAN BENTHUYSEN ETAL 3,375,478

ELCCTRICAL CONTROL AND METHOL OF MAKING THE SAML

Filed May 11. 1964 2 Sheets-Shee*

4tta
FIGURE 5.

INVENTORS
JOHN VANBENTHUYSEN
WAYNE A BARDEN
FIGURE 6. by

ATTORNEY

aes ELEN IZ LLII TILES: ICING, — PAE ELE OCG LI ELLE ID DY ES IEA CII SENET

F-3

United States Patent Office

3,375,478
Patented Mar. 26, 1968

—_

3,375,478
ELECTRICAL CONTROL AND METHOD OF
MAKING THE SAME
Jobe Van Beathaysen sad Wayne A. Barden, Fihhart.
led, amsiguers te CTS Corporstion, Etthart, led. 2
corporutios ef fodiens

Pied 11, 1964, Ser. No. 366,543
te Clade. (ch 338—174)

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A variable resistance control having a resistance ele-
ment on an electrically conductive bracket in-
tegral with @ collector ring A rotatable member is re-
tatably secured to the bracket with an electrically non-
conductive heat-deformable shaft. The portion of the
journaled in an aperture provided in the bracket is
to increase the diameter and improve the bear-
ft between

integra!
resistance element for stabilizing the rotatable
€ to the resistance element and an equal-
tor pivotally supported by a pair of arms is
in the space

He

RERE
if

it
I

SE

particwjatly, to a variable resistance control of the
provided

making >
Many of the variable resistance controls presently man-
must meet many design and test requirements,
mple, the shaft must he rotatable in a substantially
manner, and the fluid or lubricant in the bear-
must not impose a substantial load upon the shaft at
at subnormal tcmperatures wr flow out of the bearing at
) glevated temperatures. It is well known that several ma-
terials such as nylon are euclient bearing-forming ma-
“terlals since these mistesials nced not be lubricated with a
fluid. Consequently many shafts whether of brass, steel
of the like are journaled in nylon bearings. Such con-
Sruction, however, requires that the shafts usually be
, Machined in order that the proper bearing fit he main-
tained. In recent years, the vost of some variable resis-
tance controls bas been decreased by making the shafts
of an electrically noncondustive material such as nylon.
shaft construction is shown in
3,032,734, dated May |}.

ring.
present invention relatcs to electrical controls, and,
the

AEF

of
Fs

thtance control.

Que of the most difficult requirements to obtain with
© decrease in size of a variable resistance control is to
the proper rotational torque. Thrust washers and

the like generally become ineffective because the washers
8m provided with standard manufacturing tolerances.
lore, whenever a oylon shaft has been used in the

the shaft and the bracket. An annular |
with the rotatable member slideabdly en- ~

between the shaft and the .

with a rotatable contactor and to a method ”

=

yo

manufacture of a variable resistance control, the method
of oMaining the proper rotational torque has been ac-
complished an the same manner as with metal shafts. It
would, therefore. be desirable tu provide improved means
fur maintaining the proper rotational torque by prestress-
ing the nylon shaft during the provess of assembling the
vatiable resistumee control.

The conventional variable resistance control generally
employs a rotatable contactor fixedly secured to the ro
tatable member, ic. the driver. As the size of the control
decreases, greater problems also are encountered in con-
straining the contactor to rotate with the driver. More-
over, the deviation in contoct pressure of the contactor
varies invetscly with the size of the contactor sine the
contactor a> well as the other parts of the control are
made with standard manufacturing tolerances to main-
tain cost at » minimum. Thus there is a tendency for a
greater differential in contat preswres to exist against
the resistance clement and the collector ring. It would,
therefore, also be desirable to provide a variable resis-
lance control with improved means for constrsining the
contactor to rotate with the driver vs well as employ a
contactor having mean» for equalizing the contact pres-
sures in a preset ratio against the resistance clement and
the collector ring.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to
provide a new and unproved variable resistance control
having the various desirable features set forth above.

Another object of the present invention is to provide
a variable resistance control with a shaft of an elec-
trically nonconductive heatadeformable material, the end
thereof heing swaged tu secure the shaft to the mounting
bracket and to inctease the diameter of the shaft in the
bearing supporting the shaft.

An wdhhitional object of the present invention is to pro-
vide « variable resistance contrul of simple and compact
Structure with @ rotatable member having an integral
shaft rotatable in a bearing and an additional annular
bearing equally spaced from the shaft and disposed within
an afvuate resistance element for climinating the wobble-
ness of the rotatable member as it is rotated.

A further object of the present invention is to provide a
variable resistance control wherein the inner periphery of
the collector ring functions as a bearing for rotatably

. supporting a shaft and the outer periphery of the collector

ting aligns the base of the control supporting the arcuate
resistance element in concentric relationship with the
shaft.

Still another object of the present invention is to pro-

* vide a variable resistance control with an aruate cavity

in the inner surface of the rotatable member for neviedly
supporting a contactor and for constraining the contactor
to rotate with the rotatable member.

Yet another object of the prevent invention is to pro-

+ vide a variable resistance control with a collector ring in

tegrally connected to and embossed from «a mounting
bracket.

A still further object of the present invention is to pro-
vide a variable resistance control of simple and compact
structure embodying a contactor provided with a pair of
diametrically opposed pivotal arms for equalizing the con-
tict pressures in a preset ratio applied by the contacts of
the contactor against the arcuate resistance element and
the collector ring.

Still an additional object of the present invention is to
provide a method of providing the proper rotational
torque and a method of improving the fit between a bear-
ing and the shaft rotatable therein when assembling the
vatiable resistance control.

Further objects and advantages of the present inven-
tion will become apparent as the following description
proceeds, and the features of novelty characterizing the

BLURRED COPY

en

<eny

tO Ae we

Se ee

F-4

3,375,478

invention will be pointed out with particularity in the
claims annexed to and forming a part of this specification.

Briefly, the present invention is concerned with a vati-
able resistance contiol comprising an clectrically non-
conductive heat-deformable shali, ¢.g., of nylon, sup-
ported by » g bracket provided with an emboved
annular member of collector ring having an aperiured
center portion. A basc having an arcuate resistance cle-
ment fixedly secured thereto with a pair of terminals se-
curing the ends of the arcuate resistance element to the
buse iy also provided with a centrally disposed opening,
the inner edge thereof cooperating with the outer periph-
ery of the collector ring for aligning the collector ring in
concentric relationship with the arcuate resistance cle-
ment. Suitable tabs are provided between the base and
the mounting bracket for preventing rotation therebe-
tween. A rotutable member of electrically nonconductive
heat-deformaMe material, such as nylon, is integrally se-
cured to the shaft, and an annular ring spaced from the

shaft provides an arcuate cavity nesicdly supporting a +

contactor. The contactor received in the arcuste cavity
is provided with a pair of diametrically opposed pivotal
aims, ant on opposite sides of the pait of pivotal arms
is a pour of contacts, one of the contacts engaging the col-

lector ring and the other contact engaging the arcuate -

resistance element. Thus. an increase in force upon onc
of the contacts ef the contactor automatna'ly increases
the force upon the other contactor ina preset rao there
by equalizing the forces applied thet cagainst

for a beter understanding of the present imvention.
reference may be had to the accompanying drawings
wherein the same reference numesaly have been applied
to bke parts and wherein:

FIGURE 1 is an isometric rear view of an improved
variable resistance control built in accord with the pres-
ent invention;

FIGURE 2 is a front view of the variuble resistance
control shown in FIGURE 1;

FIGURE 3 Ws a cross sectional view of the variable
resistance control taken along lines JM--I1 of FIG-
LURE 2:

FIGURE 4 is an exploded view of the vari Me resia-
ance control shown in FIGURE 1;

FIGURE S$ is an isometric view of the equilizing con-
factor for the varisble resistance control of the pre-ent
invention: and

FIGURE 6 is another embodiment of a variable re-
sistance control of the present invention

Referring now of the drawings, there is illustrated a
Variable resistance control, generally industed at 10,
comprising a mounting bracket 11, a base 20. an electri-
cally nonconducting heat-deformable rotatable member
30. and an equalizing contactor 48.

Coasidering first the mounting bracket B19. as bet seen
in FIGURES 1 and 4 of the drawings, it preferably com-
Prises a one piece shcet metal stumping having a pair of
snap-in fingers 12 exterding resrwardly from a flat cen-
ter portion 13 for quickly mounting and clecitically con-
Mevting 2 porion of the svariible testtun.e control 1@ to
a panel of the Lhe. A collector ring 14 ix embossed from
the flit center portion 13 and extends inwar.ty thereof
the outer periphery 144 of the collector ring being pari
tione.| in an opening 21 of the tase 20 for aligning the
have 20 in concentri- relationship with the collector sing
14. The volletor ring 14 prefersbly projects into the
opening 21 slightly greater than the thichne s of the hase
26 (see FIGURE 4) Its to be understood, howeser, that
the depth of projection is not critical so long as the col
lector ring 14 is ceniered im the opening 21 by the outer
Periphery 14a.

For the purpose of presenting relutive rotation hetween
the base 20 and the mounting bracket If, a pair of in-
wardly eatendiig toh. 1S ate disperc fon opposite sates
Of the Mat center portion 13 and engage notches 22 in
the base, The tubs IS are integers) with the mounting

4

o

bracket and preferably sre punched out of the fia cen.
ler portion 13 thereof.

As best illustrated in FIGURE 4 of the drawings, ta
arcuate resistance element 23 proviled with a pair
depending legs 23u and 23d is fixedly mounied tg the
base 20 with a pair of terminals 240 smd 24h in | en.
able manner well known in the art. When the Tesistunce
clement is of a carbon composition, the Bae gener jj
is punched from an clectrically nonconductire Mater,
such ay lam.nated plastic, however, a base OF substrate of
ceramic material may be employed whenever higher jen,
perature resistance elements are preferred and the nyu
able member 30 may be journsled in an aperture jp, the
subsirate. The ends of the terminals 244 art 244 may ¢y.
tend rearwardly of the base ay shown in FIGURES | 3
and 4 of the drawings, the disposiuon thereof depending
upon the lovation of the mounting panel

In a device built in accord wien De present inven.
tion, the rotatable member 30 prefeto tly is molded of an
cletinally nonconductve beat-deto. mable maternal such
aus oyion bor rotatably supposia toe member 36 Mich
respect i@ the tise 20. 4 shaft on spindle 30 exergy,
inwardly of the rotatable member JO and © yourn Jed yy
the aperture 144 provaded in the colle.tor cing 14. Why
th: above-desenbed arrangement, the :otsiable member
Sos coastily asseribled to the mowutins bracket Of by
metely msciting tac end of the steft 3 into the sper.
ture $4% of the collector sing 14 ard hot waging the
cod of the shaft proycung onts cally from the collector
tine 14 us shown in PHGOURES DT oand tof oe drawings.
Thuy the collector ting 14 not only todtat y supports
the shaft Jt extending marly from the rot table mem.
ber 30 but also centers the base 20 and the resistance
clement 23 with reypect to the rotatable member 36. A
suitable heatzd eylindsical tool having an apertured bore
is craploved for saaging the outer peuiphery of the shaft
against the rear suiface of the collector ring to form
an enlarred portion 3h, amd semultancously the swaging
operation mereases the diameter of the shaft disposed in
the aperture 845 of the collector ring 14. Such design
a-sures a tight boating fit between the shaft 31 and th
beating of aperture 14/ as well es ctimirating longitudina!
mos.ment of th: shaft. Whenever the control 10 is
adjusted frequently, the inner edge of the collector ring
dechiravg the aperture 144, in witened to increase the
sutface ates Of th: beating.

It wall be appreciated that ay the size of the control
iy decteased gteater problems ate em ountered in securing
the contactor to the rotataMe member W and in con-
Mraining the coniato: 48 to fotsic with the rotatabk
member 3M. The stsangement for eccomplishing this will
be desi bed in detail hercinafter. As best shown in FIG-
URE 4 of the d.awings. culending rearwardly from th
inner surface of the rotatable member MW is an arcuate
member or annular ring 32 integral wich the member ¥.
the outer edge of peripheral lip of the annular ring 32
engaging the portion of the bus 26 (sce FIGURE 3) ade
cent to and circumposing the outer periphery of the
soliector ring 14. The vatiahble resistance control 10 b
thereby provided with two bearing surfaces, the first bear-
ing surfice beirg the surface of the aperture 146 sup
porting the shalt 3% and the sccond hvaring sutface
being the outer edge Of the annular ring 32. The first
bearing surface aligns the contactor 40 with the respt
ance eloment 23 and the collector ring 14 when the 10:2"
able member Ws totated with respect to the bae 2.
and the sccond bearing surface stabilizes the rotatable
meinber 38 and thus prevents wobbieness when the roca
able member is rotted.

Preferably and as ilustrsted in FIGURE 4 of the
drawings, the contactor 4@ Lasing a pair of contacts 4
and $2 iy nestedly recewed in an annular cavity 33 formed
by the shalt 38 and the inner surface of the annular mag
32. The contact 48 is disposed a greater distance from
the avs of the shift 38 than the contact 42 of the com

F-5

3,375,478

tactor 4@ for making electrnal engagement with the arcu-
ate resistance element 23 and the contact 42 engages the
collector ring 14. The distance from the contacts 41 and
42 to the axis of the shaft also determines the ratio
of the contact pressures To constrain the contactor 4
to rotate with the rotatable member M, the annular ring
32 is provided with a pair of slots Bla recening a pur
of outwardly extending diametrically opposite army 43
integrally vonnevted to the contactor 40 The annular
ring 32 1s also provided with a slot 32 for receiving the
portion of the contactor 4@ carrying the con't 41. The
arms 43 of the contactor 48 are preformed into a V cross:
section by forming 2 creave ertending through both arms
as shown in BIGURE § of the drawings and the bottom
edge of the V forms pivot edges 445 and 44h for pivot!
movement of the contactor Thercfore, sey manufactur:
ing tolerances resulting in the angle that the contactor is
creased of should any diffi es in tole or thi.k-
nem occur 80 as to vary the dimension between the tor

surface of the collector mng und the arcuate resistance 2

clement, the contact pressures therengainst will be bal-
anced in a preset ratio since the contactor 4@ will mercly
pivot on pivot ctges 4a and “ar

From the ahove descrip'ion it is apparent that the
variable fesistance control 1@ can be rapidly assembled
in production. For caample. the rotatable member 30 is
corned by a movable supporting surface and 4 conta tor
@ is automatically assembled to the rotatable member +»
by merely dropping the contactor 40 wver the shaft M

with the arme 43 of the contactor in alignment with the |;

slots 32a. The mounting bracket Hf is then assembled
to the base 2@ with the arcuate resistance clement 23
facing the rotatable member 3@ After the hase 20 and
mounting bracket If are assembled in position on the

shaft 34, it is merely necessary to compress the purty 4.

together and bcat swage the outer peripheral portion of
the shaft to sccure the mounting bracket to the rotatanle
member 30. Hy heat swagine only the outer periphery
of the shaft as shown in FIGURES 1 and 3. the rotatable
member may still he rotated by inserting # tool in the slot
Mb provided in the distal end of the shaft. Sinult.ne-
ously, during the heat swaging operation, the force of
the heat waging tool incresses the diameter of the shaft
within the aperture 144 for improving the fit between
the shaft and the hearing. Whenever it is desired to
increase the rotational torque of the variable resistance
control 10, it is merely necessary to provide a button or
raised portion in the center of the surface supporting
the rotatable member 30 for urging the shaft 31 further
into the aperture 144 of the collector ring 14 Since the

enuaces only the center portion of the rotatable
member 30. the peripher:s! cdge of the rotatable member
W is forced downwardly due to the pivotal action of the
annulor ring 32 and forms the rotatable member 30 into
8 dished oF concave construction encircling the button,
such construction developing a prestressed condition in
the shaft after final assembly. By controlling the thick-
Ness of the button, the rotational torque may be readily
Controlled. After the enlarged portion 34c of the shaft
1 cools sufficiently, the force compressing the parts
lozether is released.

In order that the variable resistance control 10 can be
totated from either the front or rear thereof, a siot 3ta
(see FIGURE 2) is provided on the front surface there-
f in addition to the slot 314 provided in the rear end
Of the shaft (see FIGURES ! and 4). An srrow 34 is
Provided on the front face of the rotatable member 30
10 indicate the angular position of the contactor, i¢.. to

the emount of resistance in or out of the circuit.
- plurality of undulations 3$ is provided in the periphery

! the rotatable member to facilitate rotation thereof

*ithout a tool.

An addi | embodi is shown in

t of the inve

FIGURE 6 of the drawings, the variable resistance con-
Ol 11@ being substantially the same as the variable

resistance control 10 shown in FIGURES 1-4 of the
drawings. The min difference ty that the shoft #38 ex-
tends rearwardly sufficiently so as to provide means for
securing a knob of the like to the shaft of the control.
Further, the mounting bracket I1f is provided with a de-
pending termival $12 instead of a pair of rearwardly ex-
tending terminals for mounting the variable resistor to a
horizontally disposed mounting plate instead of a verti-
cally disposed mounting plite

While there has heen illustrated and desenbed what ts at
prescat conydered to a preferred embodiment of the
present invention, a single modilication thereof, and a
method of making the same. it will be appreciated that
numero. Changes and modi ations ate likely to Occur to

. those skilled in the art, and it ty intended in the appended

chums to cover all those changes and meditations which
fall within the truc spirit and scope of the prevent inven-
ton

What is claimed ay new and desired to be secured by
Letters Patent of the United States is:

1 A Satiable 1e-istance control comprising an electri-
cally conductive mounting bracket. a collector ting em-
tensed from the plane of the mounting bracket and
provided with an aperture, an electrically nonconductive
heat-deformable shaft rotatably journaled in the aperture,
an electtically nonconductive retatable member integrally
Secure. to the shaft in spaced relationship te the mounting
bracket, an clectrically nonconductive base carried by
the mounting bracket and disposed between the mounting
bracket and the rotatable member, an arcuate member
eviending partially around the shaft and spaced from the
shaft, sand arcuate member being integral with the rota-
table member and having a peripheral lip sliteably en-
gaping the base for stabilizing the rotatable member, the
shaft and the arcuate member defining a space therebe-
tween. an arcuate resistance element mounted on the hase
concenting to the coflector ring. and an equalizing cun-
tictor nestedly disposed in the space between the shaft
and the arcuate member and constrained to rotate with
the rotatable member, the contactor having a first contact
bution engaging the resistance element intermediate the
ends thereof and a second contact button engaging the
collector ring for electrically connecting the resistance

he t to the ting bracket as the rotatable member
is rotated.

2. In a variable resistance control, the combination of
an electrically conductive mounting bracket having an
aperture, a collector ring integrally secured to the mount-
ing bracket and having a top surface, an electrically nor-
conductive apertured base supported by the mounting
bracket. and having therein an aperture in axial align-
ment with the aperture in the mounting bracket, the sea of
the aperture in the hse beme preater than the area of the
top surface of the collector ting so that the collector ring
and mounting bracket can be assembled from one side
of the base, the mounting bracket having « flat portion
facing said one side of the base, the collector ring being
disposed in axial alignment with the aperture of the base.
an arcuate resistance element carried by the other side of
the base in concentric relationship to the collector ring.
an electrically nonconductive shaft rotatably supported in
the aperture of the mounting bracket, an electrically non-
conductive bh ber integrally secured to the
shaft in spaced relationship to the bese, an electrically

ductive means integrally secured to the rotatable
member around the shaft for spacing the rotatable mem-
her from the hase, and a contactor interposed between the
rotatable member and the base and constrained to rotate
with the member for wiping the collector ring and the
resistance element intermediate the ends thercof.

3. Ina variable resistance control, the combination of a
mounting bracket having @ flat center portion, a collector
ring integral with and embossed from the flat center por-
tion of the mounting bracket, an electrically nonconduc-
tive base provided with an ape the flat central por-

OTE

SPOS TN ENN TN MNS SIAN SMARTS:

——

oS daaienadambice

F-6

3,375,478

7

doa of the mounting bracket having a portion thereof
eatending around the aperture in the base and engaging
one side of the base, the collector ring projecting from
the portion of the bracket engaging one side of the base
into the aperture in the base at least the thickness of the
base, an arcuate resistance clement curtied by the other
side of the base in spaced concentric relationship tu the
collector ring. a svtatable member provided with an
arcuate Cavity opecnme toward the collector ring, said
bracket being provided with an aperture, a heat-deform-
able shaft received in the aperture in the bracket connect.
ing the rotatable member to the mounting bracket, and
an equalizing contactor nested in the arcuate cavity and
constrained to rotate with the rotatable member, the
equalizing contactor having a first contact button engig-
ing the resistance clement intermediate the ends thereof
and a second contact button engaging the collector ting
for electrically connecting the resistance element to the
Mounting bracket as the rotatable member is rotated.

4A satiable resistance control COMPrising «a Mount
ing bracket. an aperiured collector rng inteysal with the
mounting bracket and emboywed trom the center portion
of the mounting bracket. an cletrnally nonconductive
base supported by the mounting bracket. the collector ring
Projecting into an opening provided in the base. a re-
sistance clement cairiad by the base a spaced relation
sup to the collector noy, a totatible member, an elee-
tally nowcombuctive shaft of heat-detorumeble material
connected to the rotatable member and fotatably pournaded
m the aperture of the collector sing. the pertiom of the
shaft extending besond the aperture bemmg enlarged and
folatably securing the shaft to the mounting Drwket, the
portion of the shaft in the aperture being colurged to im-
Prove the fit of the shaft in the aperture. and a con-
factor cartied by the rotatable member for wiping the
collector ting and the resistance clement intermediate
the em, thercof

$A sarnuable resistance control comprising « Mount
ing bracket, an electrically nonconductive base sup-
Ported by the mounting bracket, a resistance element car-
nied by the base, a rutatuble member, an clectiwally non
conductive shaft of heat-deformable maternal connected
to the rotatable member and rotatably journaled in an
aperture provided in the mounting bracket, the Portion
of the shaft extending beyond the aperture being en-

4
farged and rotatably weuring the shalt tw the mounting

bracket, the portion of the shalt im the aperture being
Of is stightl) Larger diameter than the Peron of the shalt
sonue ted to the totatable member to snprese the Mt of

the shaft im the aperture, a colle tor ting canied by the ;

base. and a contactor castied by the sutatuble member
for wiping the collector ring and the resistume element
mtermediate the ends thereof.

6 A variable resistance control comptiving an ap-
ertured base. a resistance element carried by the base, «
collector ring cattied by the base. a totatable member,
an electiically nomonductive shaft of heat deformable
Material connected to the rotatable member and rota-
tably journaled in an aperture Provaled in the base, the
Portion of the shaft eviending beyond the apertine being
enlarged and rotatably securing the shaft to the base, the
portion of the shaft in the aperture being of a shghily
larger diameter than the portion of the shatt connected
fo the rotatable member to improve the fit of the shait
m the aperture. and « contactor carried by the rotatable
member for wiping the collector fing and the resistance
element intermediste the ends thercot

7. A vatiable resistance control COMPprising a Mounting
bracket, a collector sing Mtegral with the mounting brack-
et and projecting from the center portion thereof, an clec-
Hically nonconductise base supported by the mounting
bracket, the base being provided with an ing re-

8
the buse in concentric relauonship to the collector ring,
4 rotaiable member, 4 shaft of heat deformable mater)
integral with the retutuble member, the end portion of the
shaft being journaled in an aperture provided in the col-
lector ring, the end portion of the shaft extending beyong
the aperture being enlarged to connect the shalt io the
mounting bracket, the rotatable member bein: Provideg
with af atcuale Cavity opening toward the collector ting
an equalizing contactor nested in the atcuste cavity and
constramed 10 rotate with the rotatable member, tie
equalizing contactor having a past of opposite ends sng a
Pair of arms integral with the contactor and Mending
outwardly thereof tur pivotally supporting the Oppose
ends of the contactur, the one end uf ihe contactor havi

[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_IA40385608_2042%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.