Application of Edward M. Jones

373 F.2d 1007, 54 C.C.P.A. 1218
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMarch 16, 1967
DocketPatent Appeal 7732
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 373 F.2d 1007 (Application of Edward M. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Application of Edward M. Jones, 373 F.2d 1007, 54 C.C.P.A. 1218 (ccpa 1967).

Opinions

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals, adhered to on reconsideration, affirming the rejection of claims 1-10 of application serial No. 659,717, filed May 16, 1957, entitled “Non-Linear Code Member.” No claim has been allowed.

Claims 1-5 and 7 are directed to a code disc per se and claims 6 and 8 set forth a “method of encoding analog information into digital values” utilizing the disc. Claims 9 and 10 are directed to combinations of elements of an “analog-to-digital encoder” in which the disc is one of the elements.1

[1009]*1009The examiner made four separate rejections: (1) Claims 1-8 were rejected as unpatentable over Schmidt patent 2,-907,996 of October 6, 1959 (copending). This patent would appear to have issued on application serial No. 512,032, filed May 31, 1955, by Vernon E. Schmidt, referred to in the application at bar, and was assigned to D. H. Baldwin Company, assignee of the present application. For reasons we need not recite, the board found Schmidt not to be a prior art reference and reversed this rejection. (2) Claims 1-8 were rejected further as “non-statutory being for printed matter and depicting merely a concept of a number system to the base 2.” The board affirmed this rejection. (3) Claims 6 and 8 were further rejected “as for an improper method claim” in being for the function of the apparatus. The board reversed this rejection. (4) Claims 9 and 10 were rejected as based on new matter attempted to be inserted by an amendment which was refused entry. The board affirmed this rejection. The appeal raises the issue of the propriety of rejections (2) and (4). By reason of their nature, no prior art is relied on and none is of record here, other than that admitted in the application.

The Invention

We shall undertake to describe the invention, as we understand it, only sufficiently to make clear what the legal issue is with respect to rejection (2), supra. The “code member” may be in the form of a rotating disc and the specification states that in such form it may be employed in angular position encoders of the type described by Bernard Lippel in an article entitled “A High-Precision Analog-to-Digital Converter,” Proceedings of the National Electronics Conference, Vol. 7, pp. 206-215, Feb. 1952, from which article appellant’s brief has extracted the following illustration to aid in explanation:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kimberly-Clark, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC
900 F. Supp. 2d 919 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2012)
In re Royka
490 F.2d 981 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1974)
Application of William Boon
439 F.2d 724 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1971)
Application of Albert W. Musgrave
431 F.2d 882 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1970)
Application of Paul J. Miller
418 F.2d 1392 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1969)
Application of Robert Joly and Julien Warnant
376 F.2d 906 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Application of Edward M. Jones
373 F.2d 1007 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
373 F.2d 1007, 54 C.C.P.A. 1218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-edward-m-jones-ccpa-1967.