APPLICATION OF LINTNER
| Citation | 458 F.2d 1013,173 USPQ 560 |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8718. |
| Parties | Application of Anthony E. LINTNER. |
| Court | United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
Eugene F. Buell, Buell, Blenko & Ziesenheim, Pittsburgh, Pa., William A. Smith, Jr., Smith, Michael, Bradford & Gardiner, Washington, D. C., attorneys of record, for appellant.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Associate Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
This appeal was taken from the decision of the Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 1-5, all the claims in appellant's application entitled "Laundry Compositions."1 The rejection was based on 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner concluding that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The board agreed, and our review of the record and briefs reveals no error in the board's decision. We accordingly affirm.
The claims are drawn to a laundry composition for use in a washing machine which is a mixture of an organic cationic fabric softener, such as an organic hydrazinium compound, a sequestering phosphate which apparently functions to soften the water introduced into the washing machine, a sugar, an optical brightener, and a water soluble nonionic organic dispersant or detergent which may be a liquid or a solid. In the specification of his application, appellant explains the background and significance of the claimed composition as follows:
Claim 1 is illustrative of the five claims on appeal and, subdivided for clarity, reads as follows:
The principal reference relied upon is the patent to Germann2 which discloses the use of a cationic hydrazinium salt fabric softener in conjunction with a nonionic detergent, phosphate, and optical brightener. The hydrazinium cation was found to be compatible with nonionic detergents and detergent builders, such as phosphates, and in contrast to prior softeners, it could be used in the wash cycle along with the other components of the laundry composition. Rheiner et al.3 (Rheiner) discloses a softening composition for application to textiles which comprises a polyalkylene-polyamine. In one example of the patent, glucose is used in admixture with the amine softening agent. The publication of Speel et al.4 (Speel) discusses the use of cationic quaternary ammonium compounds as fabric softeners and teaches that sugars may be used in conjunction with the cationic softening agent where "it is desired to increase the actual weight of the fabric while imparting a soft finish effect."
The examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious from Rheiner and Speel in view of Germann, additionally applying a so-called "Arquads" publication to the rejection of claim 4. The latter reference is not in the record certified to this court. However, the board did not discuss that "Arquads" publication, and the solicitor advises that reliance thereon is unnecessary. We accordingly give no further consideration to this publication. The board treated Germann as the primary reference and held the claims to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Germann in view of Rheiner or Speel.
The board's decision is based on three findings. It was found that contrary to the factual assertion of appellant, he was not the first to utilize a cationic softener in conjunction with detergents and detergent builders. Germann solved the problems attendant the use of cationic softeners in the rinse cycle by utilizing a hydrazinium softener, an agent which is compatible with detergents and detergent builders. The board additionally found that the claims read on the hydrazinium softeners disclosed in Germann. Finally, the board held that the teachings in Rheiner and Speel to the effect that a sugar can be used in conjunction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
...nonobvious subject matter.’ ” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1328 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting In re Lintner, 59 CCPA 1004, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (1972) ) (internal alterations omitted). Thus if the mechanical embodiment is obvious, claim 10 is obvious. The Board determine......
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.
...also read on nonobvious subject matter.’ ” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1328 n. 4 (quoting In re Lintner, 59 C.C.P.A. 1004, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (1972)) (internal alterations omitted). Thus if the mechanical embodiment is obvious, claim 10 is obvious. The Board determin......
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.
...also read on nonobvious subject matter.’ ” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1328 n. 4 (quoting In re Lintner, 59 C.C.P.A. 1004, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (1972)) (internal alterations omitted). Thus if the mechanical embodiment is obvious, claim 10 is obvious. The Board determin......
-
Dillon, In re, 88-1245
...Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 182 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1974); see further In re Murch, 464 F.2d 1051 , 175 USPQ 89 (CCPA 1972); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013 , 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). Id. at 1394, 185 USPQ at 588-89. The court observed that Albrecht's newly discovered antiviral property is "totally di......