1972 Dist cap

[James E.]

Is the cap to say patent pending R or patent with numbers R ? are both acceptable or no?

[Michael M.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

James the correct cap says Delco-Remy Patent Pending R without any numbers. The numbered caps were used in 1968 and early 1969.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

The numbered caps were used in 1968 and early 1969.

I think that's being corrected in the next revision of the '68-69 JG book to move the Pat numbered caps further forward in time to the '73+ era...

[John P.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Check the archives for my previous long winded answer.I would expect a patent # with an "R" for a 1972.

[Peter L.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Jack - I agree that the DR D-308R distributor cap embossed w/ Delco-Remy PATENT 2769047 R is not a cap that I would expect to see on a 1968-1969 GM vehicle originally and its appears to follow in time after the production of the DR D-308R distributor cap embossed w/ Delco-Remy PATENT PENDING R.

It is interesting to note that there was a DR D308 distributor cap embossed w/ Delco-Remy PATENT 2769047 that did not have the R. I have a couple of older and what appear to be original distributors w/ distributor caps with this designation. Actually the vintage is academic but there were D308 caps manufactured by DR without the R but had the patent number, whether they were used on production Corvette distributors, I don't know.

Pete

[Jack H.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Pete, the discussion here centers around the current revision of the '68-69 JG. It reads that '68 caps can be Pat Pending or Patent 2769047 and '69 caps can be Pat Pending R or Patent 2769047. However, the '70-72 JG book reverts to Pat Pending R as being factory correct.

That's what I was refering to when I said I thought this was changing in the new release of the JG book. But, I'm guessing...

When you get to the '73-74 JG book, the text says to look for Patent xxxxx vs, Pat Pending. But, there's no mention of the 'R' with respect to Patent xxxxx.

We're pretty used to seeing Pat Pending with or without the 'R'. Most Patent xxxxx caps I've seen DO have the 'R', but once in a while I'll see that other variation (Patent xxxxx without the 'R'). If memory serves, I've got one D308 and one D309 of this configuration squirreled away.

I don't think we really understand the history of the four versions (Pat Pending vs. Patent xxxx and non-R vs. R). With as many units/annum as there were produced to serve both production and service demand, there HAD to be more than one tooling set for the part!!!

[John H.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

With as many units/annum as there were produced to serve both production and service demand, there HAD to be more than one tooling set for the part!!!

Yup - production demand alone was 1600 caps per hour; that's many multiple-cavity molds running in many machines.

[James E.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Thank you all,now I know what to look for let the hunt begin! Jim

[Edward J.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Pete, the discussion here centers around the current revision of the '68-69 JG. It reads that '68 caps can be Pat Pending or Patent 2769047 and '69 caps can be Pat Pending R or Patent 2769047. However, the '70-72 JG book reverts to Pat Pending R as being factory correct.

That's what I was refering to when I said I thought this was changing in the new release of the JG book. But, I'm guessing...

When you get to the '73-74 JG book, the text says to look for Patent xxxxx vs, Pat Pending. But, there's no mention of the 'R' with respect to Patent xxxxx.

We're pretty used to seeing Pat Pending with or without the 'R'. Most Patent xxxxx caps I've seen DO have the 'R', but once in a while I'll see that other variation (Patent xxxxx without the 'R'). If memory serves, I've got one D308 and one D309 of this configuration squirreled away.

I don't think we really understand the history of the four versions (Pat Pending vs. Patent xxxx and non-R vs. R). With as many units/annum as there were produced to serve both production and service demand, there HAD to be more than one tooling set for the part!!!

Jack,
In respect to the 70-72 cap have pat. pending -R, Doesn't the pat. number come when the pat. gets its approvel? The reason I am asking the 68-69 have a pat. number but 70-72 don't have a pat. no.

[Terry M.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Jack,
In respect to the 70-72 cap have pat. pending -R, Doesn't the pat. number come when the pat. gets its approvel? The reason I am asking the 68-69 have a pat. number but 70-72 don't have a pat. no.

Ed, If you have followed this thread closely you will note a comment as to the error of the 1968-69 manual with respect to the patent number. That said I know one original owner of a 1967 who swears (and he is a fine gentleman who rarely swears) that his original distributor cap (alleged to be the one currently on the car) has the patent number on it. And of course it has never been changed. Now go figure.

[Edward J.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

Terry, My few years on the TDB theres been many threads on this subject, I feel there are still questions on correctness of the dist caps. there must be someone from production left that truly has the answers. 40 yrs. ago I bet you would never thought correctness of dist caps for 60 and 70's Corvettes would be such a topic.

[Jack H.]

Re: 1972 Dist cap

I have written on this and to me it's a complete mystery. It would take a 'good ole boy' from GM's legal department to comment with authority.

US Patent 2,769,047 was filed on 12/23/53 and granted on 10/30/56. It covers SEVERAL aspects of a distributor including the 'quick' hold down feature and 'lift window' access for point adjustment facility of the distributor cap itself in addition to other interal distributor features. US patent files are open to the public and you too can search, view/print and study them...

From a Chevy/Corvette perspective, the first time we saw this version of the distributor cap was in 1958. That's a SOLID five years after the patent was applied for and two years after it was granted.

When I was an engineering manager at Texas Instruments, our marching orders were to apply for a patent no later than 12-months after first public disclosure of the invention (hence one reason for non-disclosure agreements with various customers). Then, insure that some form of warning visible to the naked eye, was placed on the invention to the effect of 'Patent Pending' once the invention went to production while the patent application process was taking place.

Finally, when the invention's patent was either granted or there was final office action rejecting it, to update the visible warning on the invention. That would be changing 'Pat Pending' to 'Patent XYZ' given a grant, or removing the 'Pat Pending' warning altogether in the event of a rejection.

Our corporate patent attorneys told us a negligence of due diligence in these areas 'could' result in the loss of intellectual property (the validity of the patent itself). So, we moved with due dispatch in our patent filings, the labeling of the product, maintenance of non-disclosure agreements, and the witnessing/recording aspects of our engineering notebooks.

In this case (Pat Pending -> Patent 2769047 labeling change), I don't much care whether it happened in '68-69 or '73-74. That's WAY beyond the limits of reasonable due diligence for a patent granted in 1956!!!!

So, you tell me where GM's lawyers, engineers, and tooling guys were on this project??? The facts here are simply beyond my understanding in the field...