In re Fullam
Decision Date | 22 April 1947 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 5269. |
Citation | 161 F.2d 247 |
Parties | In re FULLAM et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Keith Misegades, of New York City, for appellants.
W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (R. F. Whitehead and Joseph Schimmel, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, JACKSON, and O'CONNELL, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims (Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive) in appellants' application for a patent for an alleged invention relating to improvements in polishing systems.
Claims 7 and 8 are article claims, whereas the other claims define appellants' process.
Claims 2, 8, and 9 are sufficiently illustrative of the appealed claims. They read:
The references relied upon by the Primary Examiner are: Pierce, 1,774,665, September 2, 1930; Groven, 1,998,615, April 23, 1935.
The Primary Examiner rejected all of the claims as unpatentable over the cited references, and also as being functional and failing to define the invention as required by R.S. § 4888, U.S.C., title 35, sec. 33, 35 U.S.C.A. § 33. Claims 7 and 8 were further rejected "as being fully met by any baked urea formaldehyde resin coating which has been highly polished by means of a fine abrasive." The Board of Appeals reversed the Primary Examiner's rejection on the references, but affirmed the other grounds of rejection.
With reference to claims 7 and 8, the board also stated that "We think it is only common sense to remove debris from the scratches and the specific composition containing the scratches (claim 8) is immaterial."
Appellants' application relates to the polishing of resin finished surfaces. It is stated in the application that heat-hardened resin surfaces have certain desirable properties, but that it has not heretofore been possible to patch such surfaces so that the patch will be invisible. It is further stated that the difficulty is due to the fact that when the patch is polished, fine scratches are formed on its surface and minute particles of resin and abrasive remain in the scratches, thus giving the surface of the patch a hazy appearance. Appellants propose to remove the resin particles by polishing the surface of the patch with an abrasive material which forms agglomerates with the resin particles, and the agglomerates so formed are larger than the scratches and can, therefore, be removed from the surface. The application describes a test which may be made to determine what abrasive material will produce the desired agglomerates. Examples of polishing materials having the desired properties for use in connection with baked urea-alkyd resin surfaces are said to be chemically pure magnesium oxide, "which had been air floated," and standard commercial aluminum hydroxide.
The rejections of the claims as being functional and as failing to define the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Stahl
...of this application to In re Fuetterer (319 F.2d 259, 263 (CCPA 1963)), wherein the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals explained: In the Fullam case [In re Fullam, 161 F.2d 247, 73 U.S.P.Q. 399 (CCPA 1947)], this court stated that some claims were properly rejected as "functional in claimi......
-
Application of Shortell
...173 F.2d 993 (1949) ... Application of SHORTELL ... Patent Appeal No. 5545 ... United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ... F.2d 996 and is open to the criticism made in the case of In re Fullam et al., supra, that it defines the invention "not in terms of what it is, ... ...
-
Application of Fuetterer
...wears away. It is well established that claims should set out what the materials are and not by what they do. In re Fullam 1947 C.D. 352 34 CCPA 1018, 161 F.2d 247, 73 USPQ 399." The board affirmed this portion of the examiner's rejection, "While the Examiner has not specifically listed any......
-
Application of Krodel, Patent Appeal No. 6140.
...result or defines the invention not in terms of what it is, but rather by what it does, then it should be rejected as functional. In re Fullam, 161 F.2d 247, 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1018, and cases cited therein. In the present case, we believe that the phrase relating to the zeta potentials ......