In re Jones, Patent Appeal No. 5250.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 5250. |
| Citation | 162 F.2d 638 |
| Parties | In re JONES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Caesar & Rivise, of Philadelphia, Pa. (C. W. Rivise and A. D. Caesar, both of Philadelphia, Pa. of counsel), for appellant.
W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C., (Clarence W. Moore, of Washington, D. C., of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before BLAND, Acting Presiding Judge, and HATFIELD, JACKSON, and O'CONNELL, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming that of the Primary Examiner rejecting all of the claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of an application, Serial No. 393,249, filed May 13, 1941, for a patent relating particularly to compositions derived from either 2-methyl naphthalene or 4-methyl naphthalene wherein certain radicals are substituted for the hydrogen atom at the 1 position of each composition.
Appellant alleges his compounds to be new and claims they are growth regulating, insecticidal and fungicidal compositions. In the composition claims the compound is the only ingredient recited therein.
Compounds having 2-fused benzene rings, each of which is a 6-carbon ring, with two of the carbons common to both rings, is identified by the term "naphthalene." It is depicted by the drawing
in the angles of which are represented the positions of the carbon atoms. The 1, 4, 5 and 8 angles are also designated as alpha positions and the 2, 3, 6 and 7 angles are designated as beta positions.
The derivative compounds of the application have a methyl radical in the 2 and 4 positions, respectively, and at the 1 position have one of the following radicals: acetonitrite (-CH2-CN); acetic acid (-CH2-COOH); salts of acetic acid (-CH2-COOM); esters of acetic acid (-CH2-COOR); acetamide (-CH2-CONH2); methyl thiocyanate (-CH2-SCN); and methyl isothiocyanate (-CH2-NCS).
Claim 15 is illustrative of the subject matter of the rejected claims and reads as follows:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 15, 16, 17 and 18 were rejected as unpatentable over the prior art. Claims 6, 9, 16 and 18 were further rejected as substantial duplicates of claims 1, 4, 15 and 17, respectively. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10 and 11 were rejected as not reading on the elected species. Therefore they may not be considered on their merits here. Claims 1, 6, 15, 16, 17 and 18 were also rejected as containing improper Markush groups.
The prior art cited is as follows: Carpmael (Br.), 325,910, 1929; Roblin et al., 2,166,554, July 18, 1939; Weiljard et al., 2,185,237, January 2, 1940; Henry, Vol. 2, page, 637; Behrend et al., "Annalen," Vol. 344, pp. 24-5; Fries et al., "Annalen," Vol. 470, pp. 34-5; Hewett, (London) 1940, pp. 293-303.
In the patent to Carpmael aromatic compounds are disclosed, containing one or more of the methoxy groups and more than one thiocyanate residue, each of the latter connected to the nucleus through a CH2 group, which "* * * are distinguished by an extraordinarily strong insecticidal action."
The Roblin et al. patent relates to the synthesis of naphthaleneacetic acid and naphthyl acetonitrile in the first position. It is disclosed in the patent that the acid is "* * * one of the plant hormones favoring growth."
The Weiljard et al. patent relates to a process of preparing the nitriles of alphanaphthyl substituted lower fatty acids substantially free from the beta isomer and discloses naphthyl acetic acid ("1-naphthaleneacetic acid" and "alpha-naphthyl acetic acid") and naphthyl acetonitrile ("alphanaphthyl acetonitrile") in the first position.
The Fries et al. reference discloses methyl naphthyl in the first position and acetic acid and the corresponding amide in the second position.
The Hewett publication discloses dimethyl-naphthylacetic acid in the first position and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Henze
...know what to expect in adjacent members. In re Norris, 37 C.C.P.A., Patents, ___, 179 F.2d 970. The same rule applies to isomers. In re Jones, 162 F.2d 638, 34 C. C.P.A., Patents, 1168; In re Norris, In effect, the nature of homologues and the close relationship the physical and chemical pr......
-
Application of Norris, Patent Appeal No. 5633.
...claimed compound is there disclosed, and that no utility above and beyond that to be expected of such isomer was shown, citing In re Jones, 162 F.2d 638, 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, Counsel for appellant in their brief concede that their contention as to the patentability of the claim is in appar......
-
Application of Schechter
...rejection is not challenged by appellants. Accordingly, those claims will not be considered on their merits by this court. See In re Jones, 162 F.2d 638, 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, Appealed claims 17, 46, 47 and 48 read as follows: "17. A synthetic cyclopentenolone of the formula: in which R' is......
-
Application of Sutton, Patent Appeals No. 6004.
...invention. There is no controversy over this rejection. Those claims will not be considered on their merits by this court. In re Jones, 162 F.2d 638, 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1168; In re Kirwan, 171 F.2d 326, 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, The claims rejected by the Patent Office as unpatentable over t......