Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Bramley v. Beese

Bramley v. Beese

132 F.2d 1001, 56 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 325, 30 C.C.P.A. 771, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 145
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 26, 1942
DocketPatent Appeal No. 4666
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 F.2d 1001 (Bramley v. Beese) 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
Bramley v. Beese, 132 F.2d 1001, 56 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 325, 30 C.C.P.A. 771, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 145 (ccpa 1942).

Opinion

BLAND, Associate Judge.

Appellants Bramley and Brewer have here appealed from a decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office reversing, in effect, a decision of the Primary Examiner as to the right of appellants to make claims corresponding to the counts in issue, and awarding priority to the junior party, Beese, appellee.

Bramley and Brewer filed their involved application on March 22, 1939, while that of Beese was filed on August 25, 1939.

The interference was declared upon two counts corresponding to claims taken from the Beese application. Count 1 is on the method and count 2 is on the apparatus, both relating to the separation of gases. They read as follows:

“1. The method of separating the heavier and lighter components of a gas, comprising introducing said gas into a chamber formed by plates disposed opposite one another and maintained at different temperatures, rotating said chamber, and drawing the- lighter component off from the axial portion and the heavier component off from the peripheral portion of said chamber.
“2. Apparatus for separating the heavier and lighter components of a gas, comprising a chamber, means for maintaining opposite walls of said chamber at different temperatures, means for rotating said chamber, and means for drawing the lighter component off from the axial portion, and the heavier component off from the peripheral portion, of said chamber.”

The invention involved seems to be well described in appellants’ brief as follows: “The subject matter of this interference relates to the separation of mixed gases having different molecular weights or of a single gas having a heavier component and a lighter component. Such components of a single gas are generally referred to as isotopes. The method of accomplishing such separation in accordance with the counts is similar in one respect to that of the ordinary cream separator, by making use of centrifugal action. In addition to centrifugal action one side of the separator is maintained at a temperature different from the other. As a result of this temperature difference and centrifugal action a thermal diffusion of the gas components is obtained, together with a movement of these components toward different regions. * * *"

The preliminary statement of Beese alleged no date to which he was entitled earlier than the filing date of Bramley and Brewer, and Beese was accordingly ordered to show cause why judgment on the record should not be entered against him. Beese then moved to dissolve the interference on the following grounds :

“(1) The disclosure of the party Bramley and Brewer is too indefinite to support either of the counts.
“(2) The disclosure of Bramley and Brewer is inoperative insofar as it relates to the counts of the interference, so they have no right to make either count.
“(3) The substance of the sentences added to the Bramley and Brewer specification after the paragraph describing Figure 3 on page 5 is new matter.”

The Primary Examiner held that the Bramley and Brewer disclosure was sufficient to support the counts and therefore denied the motion of appellee to dissolve the interference. He discussed the questions involved at considerable length. His rulings and reasons therefor will be dis-* cussed in more detail later.

Upon final hearing before the Board of Interference Examiners, the board held, for reasons which will be more fully discussed hereinafter, that the Bramley and Brewer disclosure was not sufficient to support the counts and awarded priority to the party Beese.

[1003]*1003Before discussing the issues involved, we think it will be helpful to set out here Fig. 3 of the Bramley and Brewer application and Fig. 1 of the Beese application; the latter is inserted by reason of the fact that Beese contends that the counts should be interpreted in the light of his applition and his disclosure:

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

Related

In re Retail Clerks International Protective Ass'n
149 F.2d 153 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 F.2d 1001, 56 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 325, 30 C.C.P.A. 771, 1942 CCPA LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bramley-v-beese-ccpa-1942.