Application of Wilson, Patent Appeal No. 8271.
Decision Date | 07 May 1970 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8271. |
Citation | 165 USPQ 494,424 F.2d 1382 |
Parties | Application of David W. WILSON. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Oberlin, Maky, Donnelly & Renner, William E. Thomson, Jr., John C. Oberlin, Cleveland, Ohio, attorneys of record, for appellant.
Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FORD, 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 claims 1-4, 8-10, and 15-21 in appellant's application serial No. 332,321, filed November 5, 1963, for "Treated Brush and Brush Treating Composition." Four other claims have been allowed. We conclude that the board's decision must be reversed.
Appellant's disclosure discusses certain problems in the treatment of power-driven rotary brushes. According to the disclosure, it was desirable to produce a composition for treating the brush bristles, whereby the ability of the bristles to hold abrasive particles would be enhanced. It discloses that the treatment composition should have a strength of adhesion to the brush bristles sufficiently great to prevent such composition from transferring excessively to the object being brushed; that the treatment material should wear at substantially the same rate as the brush bristles; that the material should have a high temperature softening point; and that the strength of adhesion between the treating composition and the abrasive particles must be sufficient to withstand the centrifugal force which normally would tend to throw the abrasive outwardly from the brush. The disclosure states that previously known brush-treating compositions did not accomplish all these objectives and had a tendency to dry and lose their tackiness over a period of time, thus becoming useless for holding abrasive particles on the bristles.
The disclosure states that appellant discovered that a composition having a high temperature softening point and a high degree of tackiness could be produced if a film-forming resin were blended with a tackifier resin which was incompatible with (insoluble in) the film-forming resin. The resulting composition would have two distinct phases: a continuous phase comprised of film-forming resin, either alone or saturated with a small quantity of tackifier resin, and a dispersed phase comprised of small particles of tackifier resin. The two resins may be either completely or partially incompatible, and the disclosure states that the more insoluble the resins, the greater the tack which the composition possesses. Appellant also disclosed that certain plasticizers could be added to render the resins more incompatible, thus further increasing the tack of the composition. Finally, appellant stated that the entire composition could be dissolved in a volatile solvent to allow easy application to the brush, the solvent being one which quickly evaporates upon such application.
The specification contains a list of suitable film-forming resins, including ethyl cellulose, nitro cellulose, cellulose acetate, polyvinyl acetate and cis-polyisoprene, among other materials. A list of tackifiers is given, including certain esters of abietic acid, polyvinyl ethyl ether, coumarone indene resin and terpene resins. A list of plasticizers is also given. The specification then gives four examples showing how to combine various film-formers, tackifiers, plasticizers and solvents to obtain brush-treating compositions of the desired characteristics, and explains how to apply them to brushes.
In view of the result we reach, we find that claims 1 and 8 are representative:
The remaining claims on appeal are narrower, containing recitations of specific resins, plasticizers, etc.
Grantham1 relates to coatings for film material and discloses a coating composition comprising a cellulose derivative film-former, a blending resin, a plasticizer, and an organic solvent. Grantham teaches that the blending agent and the film-former should be compatible.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Johnson
... Ex parte DANIEL P. JOHNSON Technology Center 3600 Appeal 2007-3877 Application 10/032, 682 United States Patent and ... claim language.); Note also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d ... 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ... ...
-
Ex parte Sims
... ... FRIEDMAN, and JED KLECKNER Technology Center 3600 Appeal 2018-003748 Application 13/714, 813 [ 1 ] United States atent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board June 24, 2019 ... the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, ... 1385 (CCPA 1970). The Examiner's ... ...
-
Ex parte Bayer
...(quoting In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974))); see also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); MPEP § 2143.03 ("Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior......
-
Ex parte Genatossio
... Ex parte LOUIS F. GENATOSSIO Appeal 98-2069 Application 29/052, 369 [1] United States Patent ... §§ 102 and 103. As ... stated in In re Wilson , 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 ... U.S.P.Q. 494, 496 ... ...
-
Combating Hindsight Reconstruction in Patent Prosecution
...Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)).130. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 131. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970); MPEP, supra note 44, § 2143.03.132. Michael E. Kondoudis, How to Respond to § 103 Rejections Using the "All Elements Tes......