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/.

One thought on “SB History | The Story of the Skee-Ball Patent • Part 6

  1. Pingback: SB History | The Story of the Skee-Ball Patent • Part 7 | Thaddeus Cooper

Leave a Reply