Application of Oppenauer
Decision Date | 26 June 1944 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 4907. |
Citation | 143 F.2d 974,62 USPQ 297 |
Parties | Application of OPPENAUER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Henry C. Parker, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
George Foulkes, of Washington, D. C., for Alien Property Custodian.
W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (E. L. Reynolds, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, and JACKSON, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 64, 66, 68, 69, 72, 75, 78, 80 and 84 of an application for a patent on a "Process for Oxidizing Unsaturated Polycyclic Alcohols," on the ground that they are broader than warranted by the disclosure. No references are relied on. Six claims were allowed.
The invention is described in the statement of the examiner as follows:
"The invention in this case consists in a process for producing unsaturated polycyclic ketones of the cyclopentanopolyhydrophenanthrene series by subjecting a keto-secondary alcohol of said series to the action of a catalyst of the class consisting of aluminum tertiary alcoholates and magnesium tertiary alcoholates in the presence of excess of an organic compound selected from the group consisting of aldehydes and ketones."
Claims 64, 68 and 84 are illustrative of the involved subject matter and read as follows:
Subsequent to the final rejection by the examiner and prior to his statement, appellant filed an affidavit by a highly skilled scientist purporting to show that the disclosure of the application was sufficient basis for broad claims. The examiner held the affidavit to have no pertinence in that the disclosure in an application was not subject to change of scope by means of affidavits either as to facts or opinion. The Board of Appeals made no mention of the affidavit.
The tribunals below rejected claim 64 on the ground that it failed to define "secondary alcohol" as being unsaturated, claims 66, 68 and 78 because of the breadth of the definition of the alcohols, and claims 64, 66, 69, 72, 75, 80 and 84 because the definition of the catalyst was not in accordance with the disclosure.
Appellant in his brief lays great stress upon the affidavit, which sets out the affiant's interpretation of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of Surrey
...related that extrapolation of the activity of the dichlorophenyl compound to the various heterocycles is warranted. (In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 31 CCPA 1248; Am. Chem. Paint Co. v. Firestone, 6 Cir., 117 F.2d The board formulated its own statement of the rejection which, however, does n......
-
In re Robins
...aryl, much less to alkyl and then "organo." Precedent, in the form of such decisions particularly as In re Surrey supra * * * and In re Oppenauer, 31 CCPA 1248 * * * 143 F.2d 974, 62 USPQ 297 (1944), cited therein, are believed clear to this We find the examiner's Answer to be singularly un......
-
Application of Grimme
...sufficiently identified in an application by "other appropriate language." In re Dreshfield, 110 F.2d 235, 27 CCPA 1013; In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 31 CCPA 1248. What constitutes "other appropriate language" within the meaning of the cited cases will, of course, depend on the circumstan......
-
Application of Smyth
...specification would not compensate this deficiency." The Board of Appeals declined to consider the affidavits, citing In re Oppenauer, 143 F.2d 974, 976, 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, We there said: "* * * It is wellsettled law that testimony will not be received for the purpose of explaining the d......