Application of Barnett, Patent Appeal No. 5088.
Decision Date | 07 June 1946 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 5088. |
Citation | 155 F.2d 540 |
Parties | Application of BARNETT. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Louis Barnett, pro se.
W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (R. F. Whitehead, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, JACKSON, and O'CONNELL, Associate Judges.
The Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office, after allowing article claims 10, 13, 14, and 16 to 21, inclusive, for a patent relating to infusion packages, or more particularly tea balls, rejected two article claims, 12 and 15, and all the method claims, 1 to 9, inclusive, and 22. The rejection of the examiner of all the claims involved in this appeal was, upon grounds hereinafter discussed, affirmed by the Board of Appeals, and the applicant has appealed here seeking a revision and reversal of the board's decision.
During the prosecution of the case certain references were cited against the claims and they were carried forward in the statement of the examiner and the decision of the board, but in neither of the decisions do the references form the basis of rejection except as to claims 12 and 15 and it is not deemed necessary to discuss any of them here.
The invention relates to a tea bag and like articles made from an oblong section of filter paper folded upon itself and upon the inside face of which, on the three open sides thereof, there is a thin layer of some thermoplastic material. All three of the coated edges are then sealed together by heat and pressure. A slit is next made along one or more of the edges in the mid-portion of the sealed flange, stopping short of complete severance. By thus slitting the flange at a place within the sealed portion the result is obtained of having the two strip portions which are to be used as a handle sealed together and at the same time leaving the closure of the bag intact. The partially severed strip, when displaced from the plane of said flange, forms a handle for manipulation of the bag when the tea is brewed. A number of different forms are shown in which the handle may take the form of a loop, etc., and the bag may also be made in two parts so that it may be separated along a weakened line somewhere in the middle of the whole bag in case only half strength of the tea is desired.
The main controversy and the important question of law involved are concerned with the method claims, and we will first dispose of the appeal as to article claims 12 and 15. There is but little controversy on this subject and since the board's opinion affirming the examiner's rejection of these claims on the ground of aggregation and the lack of invention resting in the printed legend, "tea," on the handle of the bags, especially when the disclosures of Mock and Salfisberg are considered, is so clearly in accordance with well-settled law we do not feel called upon to discuss this question at length, and its decision as to claims 12 and 15 will be affirmed.
The main issue is of such importance that we feel required to here set out all of the rejected method claims, the necessity for which will appear as our discussion progresses. They follow:
In rejecting these claims the examiner said:
First italics ours.
It will be noted that the examiner, by the use of the term, "the obvious method of producing the article," implied that there was but one method of doing so. He might have arrived at a different conclusion if he had used the word "an" instead of "the." The importance of this circumstance will appear later.
It will also be observed that the examiner's holding as to the method claims was upon the authority of Ex parte Trevette, 97 O. G. 1173, 1910 C.D. 170. The board, however, in its stated grounds of rejection of the claims has departed materially from those of the examiner, and we must frankly confess we have had some difficulty in arriving at the real position of the board by reason of the language is used. In considering this decision we feel it necessary to call attention to several features of the language used and quote the following (italics and numbers by us):
It will be noted that the concluding sentence is "For reasons stated, we can see no invention in the process claims," and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
APPLICATION OF MAYS
...multiplicity or unnecessary recital of immaterial limitations. See also In re Clark, 97 F.2d 628, 25 C.C.P.A. Patents 1317, and In re Barnett, 155 F.2d 540, 33 C.C.P.A.Patents 1119. That danger of frustrating the purposes of the statute would not seem to be involved in the instant case wher......
-
Application of Newton
...disclosed invention. For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals should be completely reversed. 1 In re Barnett, 155 F.2d 540, 33 C.C.P. A., Patents, 1119; Mershon v. Sprague Specialties Co., 1 Cir., 92 F.2d 313, 2 In re Hughes, 152 F.2d 1019, 33 C.C.P. A., Pat......
-
Application of Chandler
...of the specific apparatus afforded no basis for an excessive number of claims. The court stated: "As was pointed out in In re Barnett, 155 F.2d 540, 33 C.C.P.A. Patents, 1119, it is proper to allow applicants a reasonable latitude in setting forth their inventive concepts in different phras......
-
Ex parte Inoue
... Ex Parte Keisuke Inoue Application 10/812, 177 [ 1 ] Technology Center 2100 Appeal 6550 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board May 16, ... As was pointed out in In re Barnett, 155 F.2d 540 ... (CCPA 1946), it is proper to allow ... ...