top of page

Support Group

Public·59 members
Kendra Hathaway
Kendra Hathaway

Where To Buy Robertshaw Thermostats


Robertshaw pneumatic room thermostats are designed for proportional control of pneumatic valves & damper actuators. T-19-301 (2212-119) is single temperature, two-pipe, Reverse Acting, without dial limit stops,throttling range adjustable 2 to 12º. The T19-3011 includes a dial stop kit.




where to buy robertshaw thermostats


DOWNLOAD: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Furluso.com%2F2uiCgt&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw0MVOXReR1Ke7yl3ab0oP4j



The OE Robertshaw thermostats for the OE bypass is available again. Its made in the USA. Yes this is a real Robertshaw 333 series. If you want 160 degree alternative, consider the 333-substitute


Robertshaw has a wide selection of programmable thermostats split among 3 main series: Economy, Value, and Premier. Each has its own benefits and target audience. One thing they have in common is quality. Here is a quick overview of each.


The Premier models are new and modern. The luxurious body of the thermostat gives it away! Though the price is higher, they also have more capabilities and features. For starters, there is an extra display for the remote sensor bus. The buttons on the thermostats can be locked.


We live in a condo built around 1985. A Robert Shaw Thermostat Model 400/405 is installed. Would you have installation instructions available for this model? Alternatively, is there a primary power source on the back plate as I am unable to see a C wire? What does the letter A stand for on the back plate where the wires are connected? Thank you for any help.


A line voltage thermostat with the performance and accuracy of a low voltage control. The Robertshaw 800 series are universal replacements for many other brands and can be used to retrofit most existing electric heat thermostats. With models for heating that include single-line break and double-line break.


The defendant set forth the prior art. The Nelson patent involves a thermostat with a "box" in the basement to provide the power necessary for the set-back function, while the Schaf patent discloses a clock powered by a rechargeable power source. The differences between the prior art and the device set forth by plaintiff were discussed at length both at trial and before the patent examiner and the Board of Appeals. Although it is difficult to determine exactly every difference between the plaintiff's invention and some combination of Schaf and Nelson, it is clear that no combination of the Nelson and Schaf patents eliminates the *927 need for additional circuitry in the basement away from the main thermostat unit in order to achieve the set-back function. Because the expressed goal of plaintiff's efforts in developing the Kompelien invention was to eliminate the need for additional circuitry, and thus ease installation and reduce expense, it is apparent that plaintiff's invention, which is self-contained and does not need additional circuitry elsewhere, involves more than just a combination of the two prior patents cited.


There is no serious question that plaintiff satisfies the first prong of this test. The issue is whether plaintiff by failing to disclose the Quartzmatic motor failed to set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor for carrying out his invention. Plaintiff asserts, and the evidence adduced at trial demonstrates, that the Quartzmatic clock motor was both widely known in the art and publicly available. See Finding of Fact 35. Plaintiff notes, quite correctly, that "an applicant for a patent need not expressly set forth in his specification matters which are commonly understood by persons skilled in the art," Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 130, 152 (E.D.Va.1973), affirmed, 493 F.2d 1222 (4th Cir. 1974) (citing In re Johnson, 282 F.2d 370, 372 (C.C.P.A.1960)). Furthermore, plaintiff notes that its competitors in marketing time-controlled two-wire thermostats used a different clock motor; this is evidence, plaintiff suggests, that disclosing a particular brand was not essential.


Certainly it would have been preferable for plaintiff to have disclosed in greater detail the components it found best suited for use in constructing the Kompelien invention. Plaintiff's competitor, the Robertshaw Company using the Perkins patent, did disclose a specific clock motor that it considered suitable for use in the set-back thermostat. But failure to disclose cannot be held a contravention of section 112 under the circumstances shown by the proof. Similar clock motors were widely available and widely advertised. It is not even evident that the Quartzmatic clock motor was significantly superior to any others except possibly in its price. Moreover, plaintiff has used another brand of clock motors as well in producing its time-controlled thermostats. All that has been shown is that once plaintiff became aware of the Quartzmatic motor plaintiff determined that it was feasible to construct the Kompelien invention for introduction in the commercial market. The Court thus finds that failure to disclose a particular clock motor did not constitute a failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112 (1976), given the fact that other satisfactory clocks were available on the open market.


The difficulty with this case is that the Kompelien invention does not, strictly speaking, perform a "new" function. Other time-controlled set-back thermostats already existed. The Kompelien invention is an advance over the prior art only to the extent that it does the requisite job cheaper (by reducing installation costs), more easily (by reducing the need for a manual set-back), or with improved aesthetics (by reducing the number of visible wires). It will not be a satisfactory substitute if it lacks accuracy, or if its costs are too great. Plaintiff, in this situation, contends that a search for components that will satisfy the need for an inexpensive, yet accurate, reduction to practice should not be viewed as commercial activity.


8. Prior to the invention defined in plaintiff's claims, electrical thermostats, including means for changing the temperature setting of the thermostat at selected times, were broadly known and used. Such thermostats included the following:


9. Hand-wound clock thermostats have the disadvantage of requiring winding each time the temperature is set back. Four-wire thermostats have the disadvantage of requiring four wires to the thermostat rather than the two wires normally required. Hence, a person wishing to replace a non-set-back thermostat with a four-wire clock thermostat must run two additional wires from the thermostat to an electrical outlet in the wall. The two-wire clock thermostat requires installation of the necessary "box" in the basement.


10. Prior to the invention defined by the plaintiff's claims, persons skilled in the art of thermostats were of the opinion that it would be desirable to replace existing conventional non-set-back thermostats with time variable set-back thermostats, in order to conserve energy with a minimal effect on the user's comfort. However, it was also considered essential from a commercial viewpoint that such a time-variable thermostat be relatively inexpensive and also be simple and easy to install so that replacement could be accomplished by a homeowner without the services of an electrician. See Joint Stip. 16.


14. The Kompelien invention defined by Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 11 of the patent application in suit provides a unitary electrical *933 time-variable thermostat that can replace an existing conventional thermostat without requiring additional wiring. It provides a time-variable thermostat with an electrically operated timer in which the energy supply for the timer is independent of the electrical wiring external to the thermostat housing. It provides a time-variable thermostat with an electrically operated timer connected to a rechargeable battery. See Joint Stip. 20. It is superior to previously existing set-back thermostats to the extent that there is no need to set it back manually each day, and it requires only two wires and no "box" in the basement.


36. As of the time the Kompelien application was filed, the Westclox Quartzmatic clock motor was not critical to the successful practice of the Kompelien invention, as evidenced by the availability of other quartz-type clocks and by the use of different components by other manufacturers of set-back thermostats. See Tr. 70-71. 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page