Application of Boon
Decision Date | 20 May 1971 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8398. |
Citation | 439 F.2d 724,169 USPQ 231 |
Parties | Application of William BOON. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
James M. Heilman, Heilman & Heilman, Washington, D. C., attorney of record, for appellant.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
Boon appeals from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals which affirmed the rejection of claims 1-16 in his application1 for an "Air Conveyor System." No claim has been allowed.
The subject matter for which appellant seeks protection may best be understood by reading claim 1 (which is representative of one group of claims rejected on a particular ground) with reference to the following illustration from the disclosure:
Claim 1 reads as follows parenthetic material corresponds to the illustration shown above — paragraphing ours:
Dependent claim 2 typifies a second grouping for rejection purposes, and adds the following qualification to parent claim 1:
(8) automatic means are provided to open and close said interior doors only when all said conduits are free from other bulky material.
Various other claims recite the material to be conveyed as "trash" (claims 8 and 12) or "non-particulate items" (claim 16). The specification mentions soiled linen, laundry, linen, trash, and the like "such as accumulates in institutions such as hospitals and the like." Appellant's brief indicates that the "essence" of the invention is that "holding areas are provided at the different collecting stations to hold the material until it can be best handled by the conveying air system."
Buzzell et al.2 is drawn to "an apparatus for and method of conveying concrete or other material." Basically, what is disclosed is a system for conveying the output of a set of two concrete mixing units to a single material discharge outlet. This conveyor system is connected to a source of positive air pressure and other means (e. g. condensing steam) are used to aid in the maintenance of a pressurized system which is used to facilitate discharge of the material from the discharge line. In order to prevent loss of pressure when the material is initially made to enter the conveying system and also to provide for a practically continuous outflow of discharged material, the two concrete mixing units are operated and their contents added to the conveying system in alternating sequence, introduction to the pressurized discharge line being accomplished by means of a sliding valve arrangement between two hoppers which are alternately being filled with concrete. To further facilitate discharge and minimize loss of pressure, the hoppers leading to the sliding valve are not filled gradually but rather a "hopper within a hopper" is provided which has a counterweighted bottom panel which only opens when the first hopper is filled to a predetermined level.
Hughes3 is directed to a programmed system for removal and disposal of ash from coal boilers. The patent discloses a series of boilers each provided with a hopper and a motor-driven rotary feeder-gate which, when activated, deposits any ashes which may have accumulated in the hopper into a vacuum conduit for disposal. Means are provided for assuring that there is complete ash removal from one gate position before the next rotary gate motor in sequence is actuated.
The Board of Appeals summarized the issues here as follows:
The board then went on to affirm the examiner and respond to appellant's arguments. What was said bears repeating:
Appellant makes substantially the same arguments here as he did below but additionally objects to the board's "amplified reasons in support" of the affirmance as constituting a new ground of rejection to which he was denied the right to respond. With regard to the latter argument, while we find the cases cited in the board's opinion to be of questionable support, we nevertheless agree that no new ground of rejection was there put forward. Those "amplified reasons" do, of course, rely on additional facts, not previously in the record, of which the board took notice. However, we are satisfied from our review of the record that, even when such facts are included, the "evidentiary scheme" supporting the board's position on this rejection does not differ in substance from that of the examiner. The references to the pneumatic dispatch as defined in the dictionary and to the night bank-depository may, therefore, be said to have played the type of minor role which this court recently indicated was proper for facts which are judicially noticed. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 57 CCPA 1023 (1970).
Ordinarily, citation by the board of a new reference, such as the dictionary in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Tibberts, Appeal 2020-000138
... Ex parte JANET LYNN TIBBERTS Technology Center 3600 Appeal 2020-000138 Application 14/930, 643 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board June 10, 2020 ... FILING ... DATE: ... Examiner's notice of what is well known to one of ... ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon , 439 F.2d 724, ... 728 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Appellant has failed to meet ... this threshold requirement to traverse the taking of ... ...
-
GT Water Products, Inc. v. Luoma, 2015-003755
... ... § 103 without citation of any ... prior art based on facts that were unchallenged by the ... appellant); In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA ... 1971) (the appellants failed to rebut a finding of official ... notice when they offered only a bald ... ...
-
Ex parte Ragupathi
...doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the Examiner's notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Here, in our review of the record, we find the Examiner relies upon Official Notice only for the fact that monolithic and ......
-
Ex parte Kokkinen
... Ex Parte HEIKKI KOKKINEN Appeal 2013-010748[1] Application 11/734, 863[2] Technology Center 3600 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 2016 ... casts reasonable doubt regarding the justification of the ... Official Notice. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 ... (CCPA 1971) (an applicant has the right to challenge the ... official notice and demand production of evidence in ... ...
-
Rule Review
...to support a rejection will usually be an indication of a new ground of rejection. In re Biedermann, 733 F.3d at 338 (quoting In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 727-28 (CCPA 1971)). There are possible exceptions, such as when the reference is a standard work, cited only to support a fact that was pr......