Application of de Seversky, Patent Appeal No. 8816.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8816. |
| Citation | 177 USPQ 144,474 F.2d 671 |
| Parties | Application of Alexander P. de SEVERSKY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Michael Ebert, Atty., of record, New York City, for appellant.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. R. V. Lupo, William H. Beha, Jr., Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1 and 10 of appellant's application serial No. 723,810, filed April 24, 1968, entitled "Multi-Concentric Wet Electrostatic Precipitator," for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.
Generally, the wet precipitator includes two concentric cylinders which define an annular space between them. Contaminated air or gas to be cleaned is directed through this annular space. Water is caused to flow on the inside surface of the outer cylinder as well as on the outside surface of the inner cylinder. A discharge electrode structure is disposed within the annular space to establish an electrostatic field between the liquid films which line the annular passage. Contaminated gas is introduced through the bottom end of the passage between the cylinders through annular Venturi slots and is subjected to the electrostatic field which causes the particles in the gaseous stream to become ionized and migrate to the collecting films on the surfaces of the tubes lining the passages. The liquid films then carry the extracted matter away into a drain.
The significant aspect of this invention is the Venturi inlet which causes the gas flow to spread outwardly against the water films and press them against the walls of the annular passage. Claim 1 reads (emphasis ours):
Claim 10 is a dependent claim and no separate argument is made as to its patentability if claim 1 is not patentable.
The references principally relied on and the only ones we need consider are:
Nesbit 1,357,202 Oct. 26, 1920
Burns 1,250,088 Dec. 11, 1917
de Seversky (A) 3,238,702 Mar. 8, 1966
It is unnecessary to discuss the disclosures of these references because of an admission by appellant made in his reply brief before the board and in substance repeated at oral argument in this court, as follows:
The solicitor's brief, in turn, contains the admission that "Nesbit and Burns do not disclose venturi inlets in the contaminated gas openings of their precipitators."
The solution of this case, therefore, depends upon the answer to a single question of law: has appellant overcome the date of the de Seversky (A) patent so that it is not available as a reference? There is, of course, no question that de Seversky (A) is a good reference unless its date is overcome because it issued as a patent over two years before the application at bar was filed.
Appellant argues here, as he did below, that de Seversky (A) is not available as a reference because he is entitled to the date of a parent application filed in 1960, which antedates the de Seversky (A) patent, in which certain disclosure of a Venturi gas inlet is incorporated by reference from a still earlier grandparent application filed in 1955, referred to as de Seversky (C). The sequence is as follows:
It will be seen that so far as antedating de Seversky (A) is concerned, appellant relies for filing date only on serial ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Hogan
...applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed. See In re deSeversky, 474 F.2d 671 (CCPA 1973). There must be continuing disclosure through the chain of applications, without hiatus, to ultimately secure the benefit of the......
-
Pennwalt Corp. v. Akzona Inc.
...into the application containing such reference for the purpose of the disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (Cust. & Pat.App.1973). Even assuming that the four Pennwalt patents were properly incorporated in the '935 application, it is still non-enabling b......
-
Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corp.
...requires a statement “clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found.” In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (C.C.P.A.1973). “[A] mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything contained therein....”......
-
Advanced Display Systems v. Kent State Univ.
...material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents. See In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674, 177 USPQ 144, 146 (CCPA 1973) (providing that incorporation by reference requires a statement "clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorpor......
-
Chapter §7.02 Anticipation
...the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found.' " Callaway, 576 F.3d at 1346 (quoting In re De Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (C.C.P.A. 1973)). It was not dispositive that the Nesbitt patent used the words "reference is made to" rather than "incorporates by reference" wh......
-
Chapter §11.02 Filing the Patent Application
...what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents. See In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674, 177 USPQ 144, 146 (CCPA 1973) (providing that incorporation by reference requires a statement "clearly identifying the subject matter whi......