Kroekel v. Shah
Decision Date | 21 July 1977 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 76-723. |
Citation | 558 F.2d 29 |
Parties | Charles H. KROEKEL, Appellant, v. Navin SHAH, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Michael B. Fein, Philadelphia, Pa., attorney of record, for appellant.
Elton Fisher, Columbia, Md., attorney of record, for appellee.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
Senior party Kroekel appeals from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Interferences (board) in interference No. 98,607 awarding priority of invention to junior party Shah on the ground that Kroekel had no right to make the counts. We reverse.
This interference involves application serial No. 335,999,1 entitled "Unsaturated Polyester Resins Containing Cellulose Ester and Molded Articles Therefrom," filed February 26, 1973, for reissue of Kroekel U.S. patent No. 3,642,672, which issued from application serial No. 878,920,2 filed November 21, 1969, which in turn was based upon application serial No. 566,580, filed July 20, 1966, now U.S. patent No. 3,701,748; and Shah U.S. patent No. 3,711,4323 which issued from application serial No. 120,229, filed March 2, 1971, entitled "Low Shrink Polyester System Formed of a Mixture of Unsaturated Polyester Resin, Monomeric Copolymerizable Component and Cellulose Organic Ester." Kroekel was declared senior party, having been accorded the benefit of the filing date of application serial No. 566,580, filed more than 55 months prior to Shah's application.
Ten phantom counts are involved. The subject matter of the counts comprises (1) a homogeneous polyester resin system, (2) a cured product made from that system, and (3) a method for preparing the resin system. Counts 1, 3, 6, and 7 are illustrative:
The board found the counts ambiguous, and consulted the disclosure of the Shah patent, where the count language originated, to resolve that ambiguity. It said:
The board found that Kroekel's disclosure was limited to cured products with heterogeneous configurations and, because he had not borne his burden of showing otherwise, that he had no right to make the counts.
The sole issue is whether Kroekel has a right to make the counts, the determination of which turns on whether the counts are limited to resin systems which result in products that are homogeneous when cured.4
OPINIONDetermination of the existence of an ambiguity requires consideration of both the language of counts and the reasonableness of arguments indicating that the language of the counts has different meanings. Stansbury v. Bond, 482 F.2d 968, 179 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1973). The board, having concluded that ambiguity is not apparent from the count language, considered the arguments of the parties, which it summarized:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeGeorge v. Bernier
...F.2d 1571, 1578, 225 USPQ 11, 15 (Fed.Cir.1985); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981); Kroekel v. Shah, 558 F.2d 29, 32, 194 USPQ 544, 546 (CCPA 1977); Stansbury v. Bond, 482 F.2d 968, 974-75, 179 USPQ 88, 92 (CCPA 1973). If there is such ambiguity, resort must be ......
-
Reese v. Hurst
...91, 96 (1964). Moreover, the court does not look to the specification to determine whether there is an ambiguity. Kroekel v. Shah, 558 F.2d 29, 194 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1977); Stansbury v. Bond, 482 F.2d 968, 179 USPQ 88 (CCPA Reese further argues that under the "gist of invention" test set forth......
-
In re Baxter
...originated, and this court does not look to the specification to determine whether there is an ambiguity. Kroekel v. Shah, 558 F.2d 29, 32, 194 USPQ 544, 547 (Cust. & Pat.App.1977); Stansbury v. Bond, 482 F.2d 968, 974-75, 179 USPQ 88, 92-94 (Cust. & Pat.App.1973). Baxter, in his brief, ass......
-
Parins v. Slater
... ... count and the reasonableness of the arguments indicating the ... count has different meanings. Kroekel v. Shah, 558 ... F.2d 29, 31-32, 194 U.S.P.Q. 544, 546 (CCPA 1977). The mere ... fact that the parties ascribe different meanings to a ... ...