Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/In re Cavrich

In re Cavrich

451 F.2d 1091, 59 C.C.P.A. 883, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 235
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 16, 1971
DocketNo. 8552
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 451 F.2d 1091 (In re Cavrich) 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
In re Cavrich, 451 F.2d 1091, 59 C.C.P.A. 883, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 235 (ccpa 1971).

Opinion

Lane, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision- of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims -1 through 13 [884]*884of application serial No. 495,522, filed October 13,1965, entitled “Pattern Drafting and Grading Chart.” No claims stand allowed. We affirm the board’s decision.

The disclosed invention relates to a chart for drafting and grading-patterns used in the manufacture of wearing apparel. Grading connotes the production of a new pattern of the same general shape as an original pattern but of a desired size smaller or larger than the original. A pattern is made up of a number of outlines of the various portions of the garment to be manufactured. Fig. 2 of the application drawings is reproduced below and represents a plan view of a garment front pattern positioned on appellant’s pattern drafting and grading chart for grading the pattern.

The appellant’s grading chart comprises a flat base material 10 having an arrangement of lines printed, embossed, engraved, photographically or otherwise suitably marked thereon. Application claims 1-6 recite the arrangement of lines. Claims 7-13 recite a chart comprising a base having a grid imposed thereon, the grid being defined hi terms of lines having certain relationships. Claim 9 recites that the base material is flexible, and claims 10-12 specify a color contrast [885]*885between alternate lines of tbe chart. Claim 1 is typical and reads as follows:

1. In a chart for drafting and grading patterns the improvement which comprises (1) a plurality of primary vertical lines each of determinate, a [sic] significant, and essentially identical width and having determinate and essentially identical spacing from either side thereof to the corresponding side of either primary vertical line immediately adjacent thereto, said determinate spacing being greater than said determinate width, (2) a plurality of primary horizontal lines intersecting said primary vertical lines, and each of determinate, significant and essentially identical width and having determinate and essentially identical spacing from either side thereof to the corresponding side of either primary horizontal line immediately adjacent thereto, said determinate spacing of said primary horizontal lines being greater than said determinate width thereof (3) a given plurality of secondary vertical lines intermediate each pair of adjacent primary vertical lines, said secondary vertical lines being each of insignificant width and each having determinate and essentially identical spacing from either secondary vertical line immediately adjacent thereto, said secondary vertical lines immediately adjacent said primary vertical lines of said pair of lines having essentially said same spacing from one pair of corresponding sides of said lines of said pair of primary vertical lines, and (4) a given plurality of secondary horizontal lines intermediate each pair of adjacent primary horizontal lines and intersecting said secondary vertical lines, said secondary horizontal lines being [sic] each having determinate and essentially identical spacing from either secondary horizontal line immediately adjacent thereto, said secondary horizontal lines immediately adjacent said primary horizontal lines of said pair of lines having essentially said same spacing from one pair of corresponding sides of said lines of said pair of primary horizontal lines.

Tbe board sustained “tbe rejection [of all claims] under 35 USC 103 in view of Kravitz1 on tbe ground tbat tbe only distinction over Kravitz is in tbe printed matter itself.” Tbe board did not sustain tbe examiner’s final rejection of all claims under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Kravitz, and did not sustain tbe examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6 as being drawn entirely to printed matter. Tbe examiner did not rely on section 103, but tbe board rested its affirmance of tbe examiner’s decision on tbat section. Although a new ground of rejection was apparently made, appellant neither requested reconsideration nor attempted to avail himself of tbe rights provided by Rule 196(b) of tbe Patent Office Rules of Practice. Indeed, appellant does not now assert any disability due to tbe action of the board and responds to the new rejection in bis main and reply briefs. Tbe sole issue before us, therefore, is tbe rejection of tbe claims as obvious from Kravitz under 35 USC 103.

Kravitz discloses a pattern drafting and grading chart consisting of a sheet of relatively heavy paper 10 on which a plurality of basic, horizontal lines 11 and a plurality of basic, vertical lines 12 are imprinted as shown in Fig. 1 of tbe Kravitz patent reproduced below. Tbe illustrated Kravitz chart includes a pattern A drafted thereon.

[886]

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

Related

Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. Ip Ltd.
890 F.3d 1024 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
In Re Max A. Gulack
703 F.2d 1381 (Federal Circuit, 1983)
In re Smith
458 F.2d 1389 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 F.2d 1091, 59 C.C.P.A. 883, 172 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 121, 1971 CCPA LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cavrich-ccpa-1971.