Application of Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbell and Paul Timmerbeil

320 F.2d 413, 50 C.C.P.A. 1514, 138 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461, 1963 CCPA LEXIS 295

• Court: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
• Decided: July 26, 1963
• Docket: Patent Appeal 6898
• Status: Published

Opinions

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

All the claims in appellants’ application ¹ for a patent on a “Strapping Band Device and Method of Making Same,” were rejected by the examiner as un-patentable over the prior art. In affirming that action, the Board of Appeals stated in part:

The references relied upon by the Examiner are:

Holmes et al. 113,518 April 11, 1871

Olmsted 180,910 August 8, 1876

Beugler 1,203,688 November 7, 1916

Gibausset et al. 774,167 September 17, 1934 (France)

Timmerbeil 417,821 October 12, 1934

Titan Eisenwaren-fabrik (Germany) 648,535 August 3, 1937

“The appealed claims relate to a band for securing bales, the bands having manually operable interlocking means.

“Claim 2 is rejected by the Examiner as unpatentable over Gibaus-set et al., Timmerbeil or Titan Ei-senwarenfabrik. Claims 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 are rejected by the Examiner as unpatentable over the same references, each in view of either Olmsted or Beugler. Claim 11 is rejected by the Examiner as unpat-entable over the references applied to cláim 2 taken with Holmes et al.”

Appellant appeals from that decision. The statute governing appeals to this fourt² requires that:

“When an appeal is taken to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the appellant shall give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and shall file in the Patent •Office his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth in xoriting, within such time after the date of the decision appealed from, not less than ■sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Appellants’ attempted compliance with that statute consists of the following reasons of appeal:

“1. It was error to affirm the decision of the Examiner in his rejection of claims 2, 4 to 6 and 8 to 11.

“2. It was error to refuse to allow the rejected claims.”

The solicitor argues that those reasons do not satisfy the statute and that "the appeal should be dismissed, relying on In re Dichter, 110 F.2d 664, 27 CCPA 1060, and cases cited therein.

In In re Gruschwitz, Patent Appeal 6885, CCPA, 320 F.2d 401, decided concurrently, the same counsel made much the same argument and relied on the .same decisions as here. We hold here, •as there, that the reasons of appeal are merely broad allegations that the board ■erred, clearly lacking the specificity the statute requires. The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

1 . Serial No. 384,666, filed October 7, 1953.

2 . 35 U.S.C. § 142.