APPLICATION OF DiLEONE
| Decision Date | 11 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8410. |
| Citation | 436 F.2d 1033 |
| Parties | Application of Roland Ralph DiLEONE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
James T. Dunn, Stamford, Conn., attorney of record, for appellant. Harry H. Kline, Stamford, Conn., of counsel.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. R. E. Martin, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and NEWMAN, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, which affirmed the rejection of all claims in appellant's application serial No. 589,521, filed October 26, 1966, for "Products." We affirm.
The invention claimed is a class of thermoplastic polyimide resinous reaction products which are said to be particularly useful as high-temperaturestable synthetic resins. Claim 11, from which all the other appealed claims depend, reads as follows:
Although the board stated that the rejection was for "failing to particularly point out the disclosed invention," the remainder of the board's opinion makes it quite clear that the rejection was for insufficient disclosure, more specifically for failure of the specification to meet the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as to the broad claims on appeal. See In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 57 CCPA 946 (1970). As noted by the board, the specification discloses polyimides of the following structure:
wherein R and R' are defined as in claim 11, supra, and A and A' are certain specified amino radicals. The board stated that such disclosure described only polyimides "in which `n' repeating units were joined together," whereas the claims were broad enough to embrace co-polymers having two or more units of the basic structure at any points in the chain, with any number of comonomers between them.
Appellant has failed to bring to our attention anything in the specification, including the claims as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Smythe
...of a genus or combination claimed at a later date in the prosecution of a patent application. See, for example, In re DiLeone (DiLeone II), 436 F.2d 1033, 58 CCPA 934 (1971), and In re DiLeone (DiLeone I) 436 F.2d 1404, 58 CCPA 925 (1971), where Judge Baldwin, in dissent, stated at 436 F.2d......
-
Ex parte Alizon
... ... §134 from the ... examiner's final rejection of claims 44-46, which are all ... of the claims pending in this application ... We ... reverse and enter a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR ... § 1.196(b) ... Claim ... requirement of the statute. See In re ... Ahlbrecht, 435 F.2d 908, 912, 168 U.S.P.Q. 293, 296 ... (CCPA 1971); In re DiLeone and Lucas, 436 ... F.2d 1404, 1405, 168 U.S.P.Q. 592, 594 (CCPA 1971); In re ... DiLeone, 436 F.2d 1033, 1034, 168 U.S.P.Q. 598, 598 ... ...
-
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.
...In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008 (Fed.Cir.1989); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968-70 (C.C.P.A. 1971); see In re DiLeone, 436 F.2d 1033, 1034 (C.C.P.A.1971) (DiLeone I) (affirming rejection of claim encompassing broad chemical class, where specification described only a species); In re Ahlbrecht,......
-
Application of Smith
...matter. Compare Martin v. Johnson, supra; Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 58 CCPA 1366 (1971); In re Lukach, supra; In re DiLeone, 436 F.2d 1033, 58 CCPA 934 (1971); In re DiLeone and Lucas, 436 F.2d 1404, 58 CCPA 925 (1971); In re Ahlbrecht, 435 F.2d 908, 58 CCPA 848 (1971); with Risse, ......