Application of Rogoff, Patent Appeal No. 6385.
Decision Date | 15 December 1958 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 6385. |
Citation | 261 F.2d 601,120 USPQ 185 |
Parties | Matter of the Application of Julian ROGOFF. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Ernest Fanwick, Norwalk, Conn. (Robert I. Dennison, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and WORLEY, RICH, and MARTIN, Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner of claims 2, 3, and 4 of appellant's application, No. 467,665, filed November 8, 1954, for the reissue of patent No. 2,429,585, granted October 21, 1947, for a pressed insulated connector.
Claims 2 and 4 are representative of the appealed claims and read:
The single reference relied on is:
Watts Re. 23,688 July 21, 1953
The following statement as to the history of appellant's application, so far as pertinent to the instant rejection, is found in the board's decision:
The primary basis of the rejection is that the appealed claims are broader than the single claim of appellant's patent, No. 2,429,585, and that, since the reissue application was not filed within two years after that patent issued, the allowance of the claims is barred by Title 35, section 251 of the United States Code, in which is found the following language:
"No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent."
That provision contains no exceptions or qualifications as to time or extent of enlargement. The sole issue, therefore, is whether the claims on appeal enlarge, i. e., broaden, the patent claim.
It is well settled that a claim is broadened, so far as the question of right to reissue is concerned, if it is so changed as to bring within its scope any structure which was not within the scope of the original claim. In other words, a claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects. Fox Typewriter Co. v. Corona Typewriter Co., 6 Cir., 282 F. 502; In re Bostwick, 102 F.2d 886, 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1117; Schenk v. United Aircraft Corp., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 679; and Mercoid Corp. v. Milwaukee Gas Specialty Co., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 681.
Appellant's patent and reissue application disclose a device adapted to electrically connect two or more conductors and comprising a deformable metal ring or sleeve surrounded by an insulating cover. When a connection is to be made the conductors to be joined are inserted in the metal sleeve and the sleeve and its insulating covering are then compressed so that they are indented and forced into intimate contact with the conductors. It is stated in the patent that the insulating cover is substantially non-elastic and that it retains its shape after the indenting tool is withdrawn.
The single claim of the patent is as follows:
"A connector for use in a crimped joint comprising a cylindrically shaped metal body portion having an open end for receiving a conductor therein; a substantially non-elastic insulating cover thereon, said insulating cover having the physical properties of permitting an indenting tool to be applied externally to the insulation and causing the metal body underneath to be indented in the form of a recess to a conductor therein, and of retaining the shape of the recess in the insulation after the tool has been withdrawn."
Appealed claims 2 and 3 follow closely the language of the patent claim, but omit the statement that the insulating cover is "substantially non-elastic."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
...broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.” In re Rogoff, 46 CCPA 733, 261 F.2d 601, 603 (1958) ; see also Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2014).1 See Andrew Williams, PTAB Update—T......
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.
...if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.” In re Rogoff, 46 C.C.P.A. 733, 261 F.2d 601, 603 (1958); see also Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2014). 1.See Andrew Williams, PTAB Update—The Boa......
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.
...if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.” In re Rogoff, 46 C.C.P.A. 733, 261 F.2d 601, 603 (1958); see also Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2014). 1. See Andrew Williams, PTAB Update—The Bo......
-
Brenner v. Manson
...instituted as soon as it is determined that common patentable subject matter is claimed * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) See Application of Rogoff, 261 F.2d 601, 606, 46 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 733, 739: 'The question as to patentability of claims to an applicant must be determined before any question ......