In re Duncan
| Decision Date | 03 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 1296. |
| Parties | In re DUNCAN. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted March 10, 1920.
Archibald Cox, of New York City, W. G. Henderson, of Washington, D.C., and Harry A. English, of New York City, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents.
Appeal from rejection of application for patent for improvements for speed and distance indicator records for use on railroad locomotives.
The rejection of the appealed claims is on the ground that they fail to point out invention. The statute requires an applicant to so formulate his claims that the experts of the Patent Office may understand definitely what they mean, and the invention must be so distinctly described as to be understood by one ordinarily skilled in the art to which the invention belongs.
We agree with the tribunals below that, for the reasons suggested, the claims should be rejected. Appellant, however, has little room for complaint, since his attention was called to the condition of his claims at every stage of the proceeding. The Commissioner found that--
'The applicant has an invention and is entitled to a reasonable number of claiming clauses covering it; and upon revision of the claims, as herein suggested, the patent will be allowed.'
On application for rehearing, the Commissioner again attempted to aid the applicant in the protection of his rights by entering the following order:
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Chandler, Patent Appeal No. 6341.
...repetitions, they present to the mind a blur rather than a definition. Ex parte Duncan, 1920 C.D. 36, 276 O.G. 207, affirmed 49 App.D.C. 372, 265 F. 1012. Appellant seeks to justify his presentation of fifty claims by dividing them into ten categories, as (a) broad apparatus claims involvin......
-
In re Savage, Patent Appeals No. 4284.
...claims, we are of opinion, nevertheless, that they might well have been rejected on the sole ground of undue multiplicity. In re Duncan, 49 App. D.C. 372, 265 F. 1012, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in Ex parte Duncan, 1920, C.D. 36. See, also, In re Dann 47 F.2d 356,......
-
In re Buttolph, Patent Appeal No. 3476.
...claims, we are of opinion, nevertheless, that they might well have been rejected on the sole ground of undue multiplicity. In re Duncan, 49 App. D. C. 372, 265 F. 1012, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in Ex parte Duncan, 1920 C. D. 36. See, also, In re Dann, supra; In ......
- Brown v. McIntosh
-
Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
...invention to the mind of the reader...."). (229.) Mark v. Greenawalt, 32 App. D.C. 253, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1908). But see, e.g., In re Duncan, 265 F. 1012, 1012 (D.C. Cir. 1920) ("The statute requires an applicant to so formulate his claims that the experts of the Patent Office may understand d......