In re Rosenblatt, Patent Appeal No. 4339.
Decision Date | 01 April 1941 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 4339. |
Parties | In re ROSENBLATT. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Frederic P. Warfield, of New York City, for appellant.
W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, and JACKSON, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the examiner's rejection, based upon prior art, of five claims embraced in an application for patent "for Display Device."
Three claims stand allowed.
The rejected claims are numbered 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, respectively.
At the conclusion of the oral argument before us counsel for appellant moved to dismiss the appeal as to claim 4, which motion will be allowed.
Claim 5 is illustrative of the subject matter. It reads:
The claim of itself is probably sufficient to indicate to those skilled in the art the nature of the alleged invention, but in elucidation of it the brief on behalf of appellant states:
An unhappy situation is presented here by reason of the deficiency of appellant's reasons of appeal.
In rejecting the claims the examiner cited four prior patents, to wit:
Kreusler, 502,418, Aug. 1, 1893.
Field, 1,966,442, July 17, 1934.
Sechi, 1,977,093, Oct. 16, 1934.
Fioravanti, 2,031,409, Feb. 18, 1936.
The board in express terms approved the examiner's rejection in view of the art so cited.
After so affirming, the board went further in its decision, saying: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of Gruschwitz, Patent Appeal No. 6885.
...F.2d 904, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1241." Similar rulings were made in In re Wesselman, 29 CCPA 988, 127 F.2d 311. See also In re Rosenblatt, 118 F.2d 590, 28 CCPA 1036. On the other hand appellants argue that there is but one issue and one reference here, therefore, no matter what criterion i......
-
In re Scharf, Patent Appeals No. 5133.
...board's decision would, nevertheless, have to be affirmed. See also In re Dichter, 110 F.2d 664, 27 C.C. P.A., Patents, 1060; In re Rosenblatt, 118 F.2d 590, 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1036; In re Arter, 147 F.2d 701, 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 882, 886; Application of Dalzell et al., 148 F.2d 357, 3......
-
Application of Glocker, Patent Appeal No. 5085.
...patent. In re Dichter, 110 F.2d 664, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1060; In re Jeffery, 112 F.2d 827, 27 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1311; In re Rosenblatt, 118 F.2d 590, 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1036; In re Lincoln et al., 126 F.2d 477, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 942; In re Sebald, 143 F.2d 366, 31 C.C.P.A., Paten......
-
Yeates v. Baer, Patent Appeal No. 4885.
...this court in this respect, see In re Davis et al., 29 C.C. P.A., Patents, 723, 123 F.2d 651, 51 USPQ 458; In re Rosenblatt, 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1036, 118 F.2d 590, 49 USPQ 117; In re Wheeler, 23 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1241, 83 F. 2d 904, 30 USPQ 20; Mas v. Root, 19 C.C. P.A., Patents, 819, 5......