SB History | The Story of the Skee-Ball Patent • Part 7

Read Part 6

Simpson mailed his response to Townsend’s rejection letter on March 17. The single page letter made it to Townsend’s desk in Room 312 of Division VII of the United States Patent Office the next day.

This response to Townsend’s letter of March 2 contained an even more restricted set of claims. Simpson’s previous letter had four claims. This letter had only three: the elevated target at the rear of the alley; the ski jump obstruction to launch the ball into the air; and the levers for advancing the score. Simpson clung desperately to what he knew were the most important features of the game. Simpson’s new claims were:

1. In a game apparatus, in combination, a board along which a projectile is adapted to travel on an elevated target to the rear of and spaced from said board, and an obstruction upon said board, in front of said target, adapted to ause said ball to leave said board and continue its flight towards said target in the air.

2. In a game apparatus, in combination, a board along which a projectile is adapted to travel, an apertured target to the rear of and above and spaced from said board, and an obstruction upon said board, in from of said target, adapted to cause said ball to leave said board and continue its flight towards said target in the air.

3. In a game apparatus, in combination, a board along which a projectile is adapted to be rolled, an obstruction for trajecting said projectile, an apertured target to the rear of and above and spaced from said obstruction, pivoted levers arranged in said apertures adapted to be engaged and operated by the projectile after passing through said apertures, and an indicating device adapted to be operated by the movement of said levers.

Simpson finished the letter stating:

It is believed that the above claims will not conflict with the references of record, none of which show a board furnished with an obstruction and a target to the rear of and spaced from said board and obstruction.

Simpson’s claims, as well as his patience, were getting thinner and thinner.

About the author:

Thaddeus Cooper is the co-author of Seeking Redemption: The Real Story of the Beautiful Game of Skee-Ball, a deep dive into the history of the game. You can find more information about Thaddeus, and his co-author, and their book, at: http://www.nomoreboxes.com/.

SB History | The Story of the Skee-Ball Patent • Part 6

Read Part 5

Figure 3-700PXWide

The US Patent Office received Simpson’s reply on February 15, 1908. Again, it came to rest on William Wilder Townsend’s desk.

Simpson had reworked the application by replacing four of the five claims, and had argued vehemently for the claim about the obstruction launching the ball into the air. This was the most important feature of the game and Simpson was not going to let Townsend reject that claim–it was too important.

Townsend read the application, and responded, with his usual terseness, with several editorial changes that he wanted Simpson to make for claims 2, 4, and 5. And then Townsend brought the hammer down once again, stating:

Claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by

Miller, #809,715, Jan. 9, 1906; 

(Games and Toys, Bowling Alleys);

and are rejected.

Claim 4 is substantially anticipated by Wise, of record. It also defines nothing patentable over Miller cited, and is rejected. In the ltter [sic] patent the pins themselves are the indicator.

Townsend’s and Simpson’s game of cat and mouse was not going well for the mouse.

1908 Townsend-3

About the author:

Thaddeus Cooper is the co-author of Seeking Redemption: The Real Story of the Beautiful Game of Skee-Ball, a deep dive into the history of the game. You can find more information about Thaddeus, and his co-author, and their book, at: http://www.nomoreboxes.com/.