Application of Bremner, Patent Appeal No. 5638.
Decision Date | 09 May 1950 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 5638. |
Parties | Application of BREMNER et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Cushman, Darby & Cushman, Washington, D. C. (William M. Cushman, Max C. Louis, Carroll F. Palmer, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellants.
E. L. Reynolds, Washington, D. C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Chief Judge, and JACKSON, O'CONNELL and JOHNSON, Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the final rejection of all the claims of appellants' application for patent, serial number 483,338.
The claims are numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12 to 25, inclusive.
Claim 21 is the only product claim. It reads:
It was quoted by the board as representative.
Claim No. 1 reads:
Claims 22, 23, 24, and 25 were held to be for nonelected species.
The disclosure of the application relates to methods of polymerizing dihydropyran. At the outset the specification states: "According to the present invention polymers of dihydropyran are produced by treating dihydropyran in the liquid phase and under substantially anhydrous conditions, with a Friedel-Crafts type catalyst."
In the statement of the Primary Examiner, following the appeal to the board, there is an epitomization of the disclosures of appellants' specification reading:
The board's finding reads:
In the brief for appellants before us it is said, in substance, that the tribunals of the Patent Office did not question the production of a new chemical polymer by the process disclosed by appellants, and that those tribunals did not question the identification of such polymer.
The statement so made in the brief for appellants is accurate, but the matters suggested as not being questioned by the tribunals of the Patent Office were not considered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ritter v. Rohm & Haas Company
...mole of H2SO4 in 20% sulfuric acid. 99 Interestingly, the phrase "under substantially anhydrous conditions" was used in In re Bremner, 182 F.2d 216, 37 CCPA 1032 (1950), and apparently no one objected. However, that patent involved "a Friedel-Crafts type catalyst." It seems likely that the ......
-
Application of Hilmer
...F.2d 793, 46 CCPA 868, reversing Patent Office practice and judicial precedent which had stood for over 30 years. See also In re Bremner, 182 F.2d 216, 37 CCPA 1032; In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 47 CCPA 1031; In re Wilke, 314 F.2d 558, 50 CCPA 964; In re Palmquist, 319 F. 2d 547, 51 CCPA 839......
-
Application of Szwarc
...55 (a product claim) which were appealed to the Board of Appeals. "6. The Board of Appeals, relying upon our decision in In re Bremner et al., 182 F.2d 216, 37 CCPA 1032, affirmed the examiner\'s rejection of claims 54 and 55 of the `parent\' "7. After the Board had affirmed the examiner\'s......
-
Application of Kirk
...inquiry — has not yet been evidenced. It was not long ago that agency and court seemed of one mind on the question. In Application of Bremner, 182 F.2d 216, 217, 37 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 1032, 1034, the court affirmed rejection by the Patent Office of both process and product claims. It noted tha......
-
In re Dane K. Fisher: an exercise in utility.
...form of the structure which appellant claims is invention. Id. (71) Id. at 643-44. (72) Id. at 644. (73) In re Bremner, Taylor, and Jones, 182 F.2d 216 (C.C.P.A. (74) Id. at 216-17. (75) Id. at 217 ("In the brief for appellants before us it is said, in substance, that the tribunals of the P......
-
Resolving uncertainty in biotechnology patent law: foreword to the second annual journal of high technology law symposium.
...v. Schulykill Bank). (12.) Pierce, Fisher, at 5-9 (13.) Id. at 11-12. (14.) Id. at 13. (15.) Id. at 16. (16.) Application of Bremner, 182 F. 2d 216 (C.C.P.A. (17.) Pierce, Fisher, at 20. (18.) Id. at 34 (discussing Brenner v. Manson). (19.) Id. at 38. (20.) Id. at 41-42. (21.) Id. at 43. (2......