I'd be stepping over the 'bright lines' of my confidentiality agreement if I disclosed the patent number at this point, and I would never do such a thing. I hope you understand.
Suffice it to say that someone did get a patent on having a projected insulator tip within the bast decade, and only a few patents were referenced by the USPTO in its examination of the applications merits. It it looks like one of those cases where someone patented something that was common knowledge/practice to "those skilled in the art", but not common knowledge to the USPTO examiner. In defense of the USPTO, how would they know without physically disecting current art products themselves, which they don't have time to do. They generally only look at other patents, unless it is very obvious. The examiners are pretty well educated on their field of review, but this is one that slipped by, it appears.
Additionally, the patent system only gives you 'offensive' rights, so it is only valuable if the inventor goes after the infringers, which this particular inventor would be foolish to do, since it would not even make it to court based on the prior art. It is only useful as a vanity patent for him to post on his office wall, and maybe impress his management with if they don't know spark plugs themselves. Heck, the inventor himself may not know that projected nose plugs had been around - I've seen more than one invention created in a 'vacuum' by smart people who did not fully know the field. Not to belabor the point, but if the inventor did know of prior art, he is required to disclose it during his application to the PTO.
Sorry for the diatribe. I appreciate the input from everyone on this, and I'll post more information if I find out more about the Smokey trail. I'll also ask a few of my Autolite engineer buddies what they remember about that period, and let everyone know.
that this patent (or at least the projected core component) will not pass the innovation test if challenged.