Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Application of John R. Johnson

Application of John R. Johnson

369 F.2d 1018, 54 C.C.P.A. 879
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 19, 1966
DocketPatent Appeal 7626
StatusPublished

This text of 369 F.2d 1018 (Application of John R. Johnson) 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 John R. Johnson, 369 F.2d 1018, 54 C.C.P.A. 879 (ccpa 1966).

Opinion

RICH, Acting Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the unanimous decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals 1 affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 10-17, and 28-29 in application serial No. 835,361, filed August 21, 1959, for “Detearing Method.” In his brief, appellant “waives the appeal with respect to claims 14 and 15.” Claims 8, 9, and 30 have been allowed.

The invention is a method of treating articles such as plastic coated glass bottles or jars used as aerosol packages for cosmetics, alcohol products, etc., by physically manipulating the articles, upon their removal from a bath of liquid coating material or “plastisol,” 2 in such manner as to cause the “tear drop” of liquid adhering to the lowermost portion after drainage to flow or merge smoothly into the coating before it sets, thereby providing a package of more pleasing appearance and feel, more susceptible to the application of a decorative material, and offering greater stability when placed in an upright position. The process is known as “detearing”, and was accomplished, prior to appellant’s invention, for example by wiping the tear or by use of an electrostatic process, all of which were allegedly either uneconomical or otherwise impractical.

Appellant’s process consists of rotating the article about its longitudinal axis and simultaneously inverting the same while the coating is still in a flowable condition. *1020 Its operation and effects are clearly seen in the accompanying drawings and quotation from appellant’s application (bracketed numbers inserted):

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

Related

Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
369 F.2d 1018, 54 C.C.P.A. 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-john-r-johnson-ccpa-1966.