A Tale Of 3 Distributor Caps. What Do They Fit?

[Dave S.]

Re: A Tale Of 3 Distributor Caps. LOGIC

My take on all of this is as follows.

1. In 1958 Delco introduced th D-308 distributor cap and applied for Patent.

Thus the beginning of the Patent Pending No R cap.

2. The 047 patent number was finally recieved in mid-late 1967, thus the

introduction of the 047 Patent number on the distributor caps in the

fall of 1967(approximately 68 model year)

3. Delco/GM came up w/ the Resistor concept in distributor caps and applied

for another patent, thus the introduction of the Patent Pending R cap in

early to mid 1969.

4. In approximaly mid to late 1972 they recieved the patent and went with

the Patent Number R variation. Those survived until 1975 with the

introduction of HEI.

Comments?Thoughts?????????

[Dave S.]

Re: A Tale Of 3 Distributor Caps. LOGIC

My take on all of this is as follows.

1. In 1958 Delco introduced th D-308 distributor cap and applied for Patent.

Thus the beginning of the Patent Pending No R cap.

2. The 047 patent number was finally recieved in mid-late 1967, thus the

introduction of the 047 Patent number on the distributor caps in the

fall of 1967(approximately 68 model year)

3. Delco/GM came up w/ the Resistor concept in distributor caps and applied

for another patent, thus the introduction of the Patent Pending R cap in

early to mid 1969.

4. In approximaly mid to late 1972 they recieved the patent and went with

the Patent Number R variation. Those survived until 1975 with the

introduction of HEI.

Comments?Thoughts?????????

[Jack H.]

WRONG!

Patent No. 2,769,047 was filed 12/23/53 (that's 1953!!!!) and granted 10/30/56. Guys, we're talking a difference of 10-20 YEARS--not a few months or a few years....

We consider the Pat Pending, non-R caps to be right for late SA and all MY cars. That takes us from '58 up to/through 1967--MANY years away from the date of the patent grant where US law would have an inventor listing the patent, by number, on the invention to protect his intellectual property rights.... It's the period of first commercial demonstration until patent grant that a Pat Pending acknowlegement is appropriate--that's PRIOR to 1956....

Then, we come to Shark era where '68-69 JG books tell us caps with Pat No. 2769047 on 'em are factory correct. 1956 + 25 years = 1981. Jez, the patent is nearing expiration at this point! Then, '70 and later JG books tell us Pat Pending + 'R' is factory correct, but conventional patent law would lead us to believe the granted patent (047) still required visual warning/acknowledgement at this point in time even if GM had another new patent brewing in the wings (HEI).

I question whether the 'R' really means 'resistor' as many think/say, or if it's another form of intellectual property claim (like Registered Trademark covering the use of the words Delco Remy--there was a period here where the 'DR' font changed from simple in-line typeset to a stylized script font)....

For a chapter Judging School, I hunted down and lined up all four versions of the dist caps (Pat Pending with and without R + Pat No. XYZ with and without R). One of the 'trick questions' in the judging school was, "Which of the four dist caps is NOT recognized to exist by NCRS?".

As far as it being expensive and there being no computer access tools back then for competitors to research intellectual property rights, I assure you Ford and Chrysler had patent lawyers on-staff/on-retainer to track and act on opportunities where inventors unwittingly put their invention(s) into public domain by failure to protect their IP rights. Those of us who lived through this era 'drooled' over GM's windowed dist cap vs. the alternative of removing the cap and setting dwell by hit/miss episodes!

Why are Ford and GM alternators built on a six diode recitfier bridge vs. Chrysler's 4-diode full wave rectifier circuit topology? Why spend the extra $$$ for another two diodes that are essentially unnecessary? Reason, Chrysler invented and patented the 4-diode, full wave rectifier bridge alternator and nobody wanted to pay their patent royalty....

No, I think there's a VERY interesting story here that's a part of automotive history that we don't fully comprehend. We need people who were in senior management, design or legal authority at GM in the period to speak to us.... Guessing based on this/that and/or small sample observation of 'untouched' original cars doesn't 'get it' in my humble opinion....

[Jack H.]

WRONG!

Patent No. 2,769,047 was filed 12/23/53 (that's 1953!!!!) and granted 10/30/56. Guys, we're talking a difference of 10-20 YEARS--not a few months or a few years....

We consider the Pat Pending, non-R caps to be right for late SA and all MY cars. That takes us from '58 up to/through 1967--MANY years away from the date of the patent grant where US law would have an inventor listing the patent, by number, on the invention to protect his intellectual property rights.... It's the period of first commercial demonstration until patent grant that a Pat Pending acknowlegement is appropriate--that's PRIOR to 1956....

Then, we come to Shark era where '68-69 JG books tell us caps with Pat No. 2769047 on 'em are factory correct. 1956 + 25 years = 1981. Jez, the patent is nearing expiration at this point! Then, '70 and later JG books tell us Pat Pending + 'R' is factory correct, but conventional patent law would lead us to believe the granted patent (047) still required visual warning/acknowledgement at this point in time even if GM had another new patent brewing in the wings (HEI).

I question whether the 'R' really means 'resistor' as many think/say, or if it's another form of intellectual property claim (like Registered Trademark covering the use of the words Delco Remy--there was a period here where the 'DR' font changed from simple in-line typeset to a stylized script font)....

For a chapter Judging School, I hunted down and lined up all four versions of the dist caps (Pat Pending with and without R + Pat No. XYZ with and without R). One of the 'trick questions' in the judging school was, "Which of the four dist caps is NOT recognized to exist by NCRS?".

As far as it being expensive and there being no computer access tools back then for competitors to research intellectual property rights, I assure you Ford and Chrysler had patent lawyers on-staff/on-retainer to track and act on opportunities where inventors unwittingly put their invention(s) into public domain by failure to protect their IP rights. Those of us who lived through this era 'drooled' over GM's windowed dist cap vs. the alternative of removing the cap and setting dwell by hit/miss episodes!

Why are Ford and GM alternators built on a six diode recitfier bridge vs. Chrysler's 4-diode full wave rectifier circuit topology? Why spend the extra $$$ for another two diodes that are essentially unnecessary? Reason, Chrysler invented and patented the 4-diode, full wave rectifier bridge alternator and nobody wanted to pay their patent royalty....

No, I think there's a VERY interesting story here that's a part of automotive history that we don't fully comprehend. We need people who were in senior management, design or legal authority at GM in the period to speak to us.... Guessing based on this/that and/or small sample observation of 'untouched' original cars doesn't 'get it' in my humble opinion....

[Peter L.]

Re: D-R Distribtor Cap Patent Number

It should be noted that the patent number displayed on the Delco-Remy distributor cap is for the US Patent which was granted for the overall distributor design not the cap. Pete

[Peter L.]

Re: D-R Distribtor Cap Patent Number

It should be noted that the patent number displayed on the Delco-Remy distributor cap is for the US Patent which was granted for the overall distributor design not the cap. Pete

[Jack H.]

Yes, what's your point?

Patent has, roughly, six independent claims and maybe an equal number of dependent claims. ONE of the indepedent claims is a distributor with a 'windowed' cap. Are you saying you know of any 'prior art' demonstrating any of the inventor's independent claims that LACKS a distributor cap with a window?

[Jack H.]

Yes, what's your point?

Patent has, roughly, six independent claims and maybe an equal number of dependent claims. ONE of the indepedent claims is a distributor with a 'windowed' cap. Are you saying you know of any 'prior art' demonstrating any of the inventor's independent claims that LACKS a distributor cap with a window?