Application of DuBois, Patent Appeal No. 6395.
Decision Date | 19 December 1958 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6395. |
Citation | 262 F.2d 88 |
Parties | Matter of the Application of Arthur E. DUBOIS and Elizabeth Will. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges.
The question here is the patentability of a bit of military uniform accouterment known as a shoulder cord. We are told that it was created in response to a need for some device which could be worn by all infantrymen, regardless of ability or experience by virtue of which various medals, badges and ribbons might be worn, for the purpose of improving and maintaining morale and esprit de corps.
The shoulder cord, which is a closed loop large enough to surround the shoulder, is described (with illustrations) in the Department of the Army's Special Regulations No. 600-60-1 of 8 April 1953, pages 65 et seq. as follows:
." Appellants, at the time of making the invention, were employees of the United States Government and assigned to what is now the Heraldic Branch, Office of Research and Engineering, Office of the Quartermaster General. The application and the invention have been assigned to the Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army.
The present application, Serial No. 324,157 was filed on the same day as an application for Design Patent, December 4, 1952, and Patent No. Des. 170,453, issued on September 22, 1953, also to the Secretary of the Army. The design patent shows the same shoulder cord as Fig. 93 of the aforesaid SR 600-60-1 and contains as part of its specification the following:
"The characteristic features of the design reside in the continuous endless loop composed of two major lengths of interlocking square knots joined at their upper ends by a plain cord and at their lower ends by a twisted cord, said cords being of lesser diameters than the diameters of the lengths of interlocking square knots, all as shown."
The functional purpose of the section of plain cord joining the upper ends is to go under the shoulder loop of the uniform without making a bulge and, similarly, the lesser diameter twisted cord joining the lower ends is to reduce chafing of the uniform under the sleeve.
The appealed claims read (emphasis ours):
These claims stand rejected on the ground of "double patenting" because of the issuance to appellants of their design patent, Des. 170,453, no other references being relied on. Since there are no other grounds of rejection, the sole question to be decided is whether allowance of the appealed claims would result in "double patenting." Of the many possible aspects of this legal problem the only one here involved is that raised by the decision of the Board of Appeals that "only one invention is present" and therefore two patents cannot issue. In extenso, the board, in an opinion on a petition for reconsideration, expressed itself as follows:
(Emphasis ours.)
In explanation of the reference to disclaimer it should be mentioned that appellants, subsequent to final rejection, filed a terminal disclaimer, under 35 U.S.C. § 253, as to that portion of the term of any patent they might obtain on the appealed application extending beyond the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.
...embody the design, and vice versa. 535 F.2d at 381. See In re Hargraves, 53 F.2d 900 (Cust. & Pat.App.1931); Application of DuBois, 262 F.2d 88, 46 C.C.P.A. 744 (1958). Thereupon, the Ropat court held that the "novel feature" constituting the design claimed in the design for the popcorn pop......
-
Avia Group Intern., Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.
...see, e.g., Carman Indus., Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 938-39, 220 USPQ 481, 486-87 (Fed.Cir.1983); In re Dubois & Will, 46 C.C.P.A. 744, 262 F.2d 88, 90, 120 USPQ 198, 200 (1958). to evidence of prior art references, none of which is in dispute. LAG's arguments are, thus, misfocused. Rather......
-
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
...operates to limit the terminal date of a subsequent patent so that it is coterminous with a prior patent. See, e.g., In re Dubois, 262 F.2d 88 (C.C.P.A.1958). 33 See supra p. 559 for the full text of the 34 See infra p. 565 regarding the usage of "comprises" in a patent claim. 35 See supra ......
-
Carman Industries, Inc. v. Wahl
...202 USPQ 559, 565 (6th Cir.1979); Wahl, 624 F.2d at 1179, 206 USPQ at 871.18 Hargraves, 53 F.2d 900, 11 USPQ 240.19 In re Dubois, 262 F.2d 88, 120 USPQ 198 (CCPA 1958).20 In re Swett, 451 F.2d 631, 59 CCPA 726, 172 USPQ 72 (1971).21 Thorington, 418 F.2d at 537, 57 CCPA at 768, 163 USPQ at 6......