In re Wahl
| Decision Date | 01 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 4654. |
| Citation | 132 F.2d 323,30 CCPA 719 |
| Parties | In re WAHL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Harold T. Stowell, of Washington, D. C. (Ralph E. Parker, of Washington, D. C., and Hutz & Joslin, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
W. W. Cochran, of Washington, D. C. (E. L. Reynolds, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, and JACKSON, Associate Judges.
Claims 12 to 18, inclusive, of appellant's application for a patent relating to dyes containing nigrosines or indulines were rejected by the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office, and on appeal to the Board of Appeals, the examiner's action was affirmed. Appellant then filed with the board a petition for reconsideration together with requested amendments which specified definite proportions of the materials used. In its second decision the board, upon the oral statement of the examiner that the process claims, 12, 13, and 14, thus amended, would be patentable, recommended the allowance of these claims. It concluded, however, that the product claims, 15, 16, 17, and 18, even if amended, would still be unpatentable over the prior art. From the decision of the board, applicant has appealed to this court.
Dyes containing nigrosines and indulines, according to appellant's application, have an objectionable odor. Appellant corrects this objectionable feature of such dyes by the addition thereto of carboxylic acids, such as citric, tartaric, cinnamic, and benzoic acids, or their derivatives or substitution products. He suggests that the weight of the acid may be from two to five per cent of that of the dyestuff.
The claims were rejected upon the prior art. The three references cited are:
Conrad, 328,465, October 20, 1885 Homolka, 418,916, January 7, 1890 Dreher, 630,199, August 1, 1899.
The Primary Examiner further rejected the claims upon other grounds which will be referred to hereinafter.
Conrad discloses the addition of tartaric acids or tartrates, or laevulinic acid to dyes containing induline. His patent relates to "fixing coloring-matters upon textile fibers." No mention is made of removing objectionable odors. He uses a much larger percentage of acid than that used by appellant, but he states that his process permits of varying the amount to suit the circumstances.
The Homolka patent relates to "improvements in coloring-matter of the induline series." Homolka teaches the use of acetic or other organic acids, such as tartaric, citric, and laevulic acids. The amount of acid is not specified.
Dreher states that his invention relates to "improvements in processes of preparing solutions of basic artificial coloring-matters for dyeing and printing purposes." He uses a large...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Application of Rubinfield, Patent Appeal No. 6397.
...decision, the former issue is before this court as well as the latter. In re Wagenhorst, 64 F.2d 780, 20 CC PA 991; In re Wahl, 132 F.2d 323, 30 CCPA 719. It is noted that appellant's eighth reason of appeal here is that "The Board of Appeals erred in holding in effect that a design applica......
-
In re Boyce
...re Lincoln et al., 126 F.2d 477, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 942, 948; Foss v. Oglesby, 127 F.2d 312, 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1005, 1008; In re Wahl, 132 F.2d 323, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 719, 721; In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 730, 731; Jones v. Winsor, 133 F.2d 931, 30 C.C.P.A., P......
-
Application of Heritage
...by the examiner, "and not expressly reversed by the board." In re Wagenhorst, 64 F.2d 780, 782, 20 C.C. P.A., Patents, 991; In re Wahl, 132 F.2d 323, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, The examiner also stated that, although Carmichael, Cutler et al., and Ulrich used organic solvents in order to apply t......
-
Application of Rogoff, Patent Appeal No. 6385.
...it is to be considered affirmed and is properly before us since the board entered a general affirmance of the examiner's decision. In re Wahl, 132 F.2d 323, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 719; In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, Title 35, section 251 of the United States Code also p......