Application of Arbeit
Decision Date | 28 September 1953 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 5937. |
Citation | 99 USPQ 123,206 F.2d 947 |
Parties | Application of ARBEIT et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
John L. Seymour, New York City (Dale A. Bauer, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
E. L. Reynolds, Washington, D. C. (S. W. Cochran, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, JOHNSON, WORLEY and COLE, Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting several claims of an application, serial No. 69,667, filed January 7, 1949, for "Glass Tank Furnaces." One claim numbered 42 was allowed by the Primary Examiner.
Two claims numbered, respectively, 11 and 12, are listed among the appealed claims, but no reference to them is made in either the reasons of appeal or the brief for appellants before us. The board said concerning them:
"Claims 11 and 12 have been rejected by the Primary Examiner as not inclusive of the elected species of subject matter and since that rejection has not been challenged we need not further consider these claims."
Obviously, those claims were improperly included in the list and the appeal as to them will be formally dismissed.
So, the claims actually on appeal are numbered 1, 31, 33, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45 and 46. Claim 38 is dependent upon claim 37, and claims 44, 45 and 46 are dependent upon claim 43. Claim 33 is a method claim; all the others are for apparatus.
We here quote claim Nos. 1, 33, 37 and 43:
The following patents were cited as references: Rogers 469,454 Feb. 23, 1892; Voelker 706,283 Aug. 5, 1902; Grauel 1,552,555 Sept. 8, 1925; Arbeit 1,593,054 July 20, 1926.
Appellants' specification and figure 2 of the drawings, which figure, the board states "illustrates the species of alleged invention that has been elected," disclose a furnace having three separate compartments (also referred to as tanks and zones) that are connected by tubes referred to in some of the claims as "conducts"1 and in others as "conduits." In figure 2, the tubes are longitudinally arranged and are described as "having a small cross section, preferably cylindrical, inserted into the depth of the walls of the two compartments to be connected."
The manufacturing process evidently requires high degrees of heat in the tanks and the specification teaches "heating by the Joule2 effect with submerged electrodes, such heating being used alone or else combined with surface heating."
It is explained in the specification that the vitrifiable materials used in the composition of glass are melted in the first tank, or zone, being there reacted "on one another;" that the second tank, or zone, is "for evolving the bubbles so as to refine the glass;" and that the third tank, or zone, is provided "for conditioning the molten glass by cooling it down to the temperature suitable for working it by rolling, gathering, feeder extraction, and so on."
Neither the specification nor the claims specify any degree of heat, but the brief for appellants recites temperatures of "about 1100° to 1200° C." in the third.
Such additional details of structure as are deemed pertinent upon the narrow issue here involved are stated hereinafter.
The following informative statement is quoted from the brief for appellants:
In the specification it is said:
While, as has been indicated, many claims are embraced in the appeal, the issue as presented before us actually is limited to the question of whether the subject matter relating to preventing the currents of molten glass from "flowing the wrong way in the furnace" is patentable as that feature is expressed in the appealed claims.
The following statement is taken from the decision of the board:
* * *."
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the velocity of the currents of molten glass flowing through the connecting conduits constitutes the element relied upon to prevent the backward flow of such molten glass.
In the brief on behalf of appellants and in the oral argument before us, practically all the emphasis was placed upon claim 43 and the dependent claims 44 and 45, and from our study of the case, we think it logical to give claim 43 first consideration. Unless the velocity feature, as expressed in the claim, is patentable, it is not discerned how such feature properly can be held patentable as it is expressed in any other of the appealed claims.
Before discussing the merits of claim 43, however, there is a question which requires preliminary attention.
As has been stated, one claim stands allowed. It seems to have been "indicated as allowable" by the Primary Examiner. It is presently numbered 42. In stating the reasons for appeal to us, it is alleged that the Board of Appeals erred "In failing to allow claims 43 to 45 in view of the allowance of claim 42," and in both the brief and oral argument before us, argument was made in support of that alleged error.
In the case of In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104, 110, 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1117, 1126, we said:
"We apprehend that there is no rule of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
...invention. 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112 paragraph 2; In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 547-48, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Arbeit, 206 F.2d 947, 958, 99 USPQ 123, 131-32 (CCPA 1953). These principles are not unlimited in their application, but reflect the equitable concept that claims should be ......
-
Donaldson Co., Inc., In re, 91-1386
...a validity or infringement determination in a court. 4 To the extent that In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957), In re Arbeit, 206 F.2d 947, 99 The Commissioner argues that his interpretation is entitled to deference in view of what the Commissioner alleges is the PTO's swe......
-
Stearns v. Tinker & Rasor
...must rotate easily to cause proper propulsion of the electrode while permitting it to rotate." 4 35 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. 5 Application of Arbeit, 206 F.2d 947, 41 C.C.P.A., Patents, 719; Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric Company, D.C., 146 F.Supp. 6 Schramm, "The Relationship of the Pat......
-
Sola Electric Co. v. General Electric Company
...this amendment are few. The only case which the writer has been able to find relating to the question at hand is the Application of Arbeit, 206 F.2d 947, 41 C.C.P.A., Patents, 719. In that case, 206 F.2d at page 957, the court, by Chief Judge Garrett, after referring to the case of General ......
-
The CCPA's Lasting Impact On U.S. Patent Law: Part 1
...("To the extent that In re Lundberg, 44 C.C.P.A. 909, 244 F.2d 543, 113 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 530 (CCPA 1979), In re Arbeit, 41 C.C.P.A. 719, 206 F.2d 947, 99 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 123 (CCPA 1953), or any other precedent of this court suggests or holds to the contrary, it is expressly overruled."). See a......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...the issue of the applicability of the last paragraph in determinations of patentability did not apply the scope clause. See In re Arbeit, 206 F.2d 947 (C.C.P.A. 1953). The appeal of this case was taken prior to the effective date of the Act of 1952, and the court did not expressly rule as t......