Application of Blattner
Decision Date | 17 June 1957 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6281. |
Citation | 245 F.2d 491,114 USPQ 299 |
Parties | Application of Emil H. BLATTNER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (George C. Roeming, Rockville, Md., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL, WORLEY, RICH and JACKSON (retired), Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office sustaining the Primary Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, and 13 of appellant's application for a patent on a Side Bearing, on the ground of double patenting in view of appellant's patent, No. 2,515,853. That patent was granted July 18, 1950, on an application filed June 19, 1948. The appealed application was filed June 16, 1948 — three days prior to the application on which the patent was issued.
Since no issues of fact are involved it is unnecessary to consider in detail the inventions to which the application and patent relate. It is agreed, however, that the application and patent disclose patentably distinct species of a generic invention. The claims of the patent are limited to one species and the application contains allowed claims limited to the other species, in addition to the rejected claims which are generic to both. At the time the patent was granted, the application involved in the instant appeal contained only specific claims, and the generic claims were first inserted almost ten months later.
The sole question is one of law; namely, whether appellant, by taking out his patent containing only specific claims, at a time when he had no application pending containing generic claims, has forfeited his right to obtain generic claims in the appealed application. In answering that question in the affirmative, the Patent Office tribunals relied primarily upon Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., D.C., 296 F. 188, 196, which stated the law to be as follows:
(Italics ours.)
The Union Typewriter case, cited in the above excerpt, involved two patents granted to the same inventor on copending applications, the claims of the second patent having been inserted by amendment after the first patent issued. It was held that if such claims were construed to be generic to the two patents they would be void for double patenting. In so holding, the court quoted with approval the following statement from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in Jones v. Larter, 92 O.G. 383:
The law as to double patenting in situations of the type here is stated as follows in Glascock and Stringham, Patent Law, 1943 (Pacot Publications, Madison, Wis.) Section 2860:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bott v. Four Star Corp., s. 88-1117
...D. Double Patenting Four Star argues that the '710 patent is invalid for statutory double patenting, citing In re Blattner, 245 F.2d 491, 494, 114 USPQ 299, 301 (CCPA 1957), for the proposition that generic claims cannot issue later than species claims. Because the '710 claims are not gener......
-
Walker v. Bailey
... ... The interference issue consists of a single count which originated in the application of Bailey and reads as follows: ... "1. The process of producing hollow articles of thermoplastic resin material which comprises extruding a charge ... ...