In re Rosenblatt, Patent Appeal No. 4339.

Decision Date01 April 1941
Docket NumberPatent Appeal No. 4339.
PartiesIn re ROSENBLATT.
CourtU.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

Frederic P. Warfield, of New York City, for appellant.

W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, and JACKSON, Associate Judges.

GARRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner's rejection, based upon prior art, of five claims embraced in an application for patent "for Display Device."

Three claims stand allowed.

The rejected claims are numbered 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, respectively.

At the conclusion of the oral argument before us counsel for appellant moved to dismiss the appeal as to claim 4, which motion will be allowed.

Claim 5 is illustrative of the subject matter. It reads: "5. A display device for illuminated signs and the like comprising a light-transmitting evacuated tube, a supply of low-boiling liquid in the tube, and means in the tube for promoting vaporization of liquid beneath the surface of the liquid upon production of a suitable temperature gradient between the extremities of the tube, thereby causing a succession of bubbles to rise through the said liquid, the said means comprising a quantity of material containing a plurality of interstices for retaining a portion of the said vapor and holding the thus-entrapped vapor, thereby facilitating a continuous and substantially regular liberation of vapor therefrom."

The claim of itself is probably sufficient to indicate to those skilled in the art the nature of the alleged invention, but in elucidation of it the brief on behalf of appellant states:

"The subject matter of the invention relates to display signs in which are provided a plurality of letters or other indicia made of transparent tubing and containing a colored liquid having a low boiling temperature. The letters or other indicia are formed of individual units each of which has a quantity of the liquid sealed within it under reduced atmospheric pressure. Bubbles are caused to pass upwardly through the tubing as liquid circulates downwardly, and the letters or other indicia are illuminated by a light from behind, so that the movement of the bubbles attracts attention to the sign.

"The claims under rejection are directed to such a display device containing a material for initiating and maintaining a continuous and steady movement of bubbles within the tube. Three claims specifying this material as `glass wool' have been allowed."

An unhappy situation is presented here by reason of the deficiency of appellant's reasons of appeal.

In rejecting the claims the examiner cited four prior patents, to wit:

Kreusler, 502,418, Aug. 1, 1893.

Field, 1,966,442, July 17, 1934.

Sechi, 1,977,093, Oct. 16, 1934.

Fioravanti, 2,031,409, Feb. 18, 1936.

The board in express terms approved the examiner's rejection in view of the art so cited.

After so affirming, the board went further in its decision, saying: "We find a new reference which appears more analogous to applicant's particular combination as comprising merely a small straight glass tube for boiling of liquids and with some glass beads or scraps of platinum foil in the base thereof to prevent bumping. This reference is Fig. 375, page 387 and descriptive matter, lines 5 and 6 from the bottom of page 386 of Ganot's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Application of Gruschwitz, Patent Appeal No. 6885.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • 26 d5 Julho d5 1963
    ...F.2d 904, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1241." Similar rulings were made in In re Wesselman, 29 CCPA 988, 127 F.2d 311. See also In re Rosenblatt, 118 F.2d 590, 28 CCPA 1036. On the other hand appellants argue that there is but one issue and one reference here, therefore, no matter what criterion i......
  • In re Scharf, Patent Appeals No. 5133.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • 7 d2 Maio d2 1946
    ...board's decision would, nevertheless, have to be affirmed. See also In re Dichter, 110 F.2d 664, 27 C.C. P.A., Patents, 1060; In re Rosenblatt, 118 F.2d 590, 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1036; In re Arter, 147 F.2d 701, 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 882, 886; Application of Dalzell et al., 148 F.2d 357, 3......
  • Application of Glocker, Patent Appeal No. 5085.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • 7 d1 Janeiro d1 1946
    ...patent. In re Dichter, 110 F.2d 664, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1060; In re Jeffery, 112 F.2d 827, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1311; In re Rosenblatt, 118 F.2d 590, 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1036; In re Lincoln et al., 126 F.2d 477, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 942; In re Sebald, 143 F.2d 366, 31 C.C.P.A., Paten......
  • Yeates v. Baer, Patent Appeal No. 4885.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • 26 d1 Junho d1 1944
    ...this court in this respect, see In re Davis et al., 29 C.C. P.A., Patents, 723, 123 F.2d 651, 51 USPQ 458; In re Rosenblatt, 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1036, 118 F.2d 590, 49 USPQ 117; In re Wheeler, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1241, 83 F. 2d 904, 30 USPQ 20; Mas v. Root, 19 C.C. P.A., Patents, 819, 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT