Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/In re Mlot-Fijalkowski

In re Mlot-Fijalkowski

676 F.2d 666, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 713, 1982 CCPA LEXIS 156
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 15, 1982
DocketAppeal No. 81-597
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 676 F.2d 666 (In re Mlot-Fijalkowski) 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 Mlot-Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d 666, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 713, 1982 CCPA LEXIS 156 (ccpa 1982).

Opinion

MARKEY, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 in application serial No. 818,444, filed July 25, 1977, entitled “Visible Dye Penetrant System,” as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Sockman et al. (Sockman)1 combined with either Vincent et al. (Vincent)2 or Skelly et al. (Skelly).3 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Invention

Appellant claims an improvement in the art of non-destructive testing of workpieces for surface discontinuities using dye penetrants. The basic prior art process includes four steps: (1) a liquid penetrant, typically a visible dye in a penetrating oil, is applied [667]*667to the surface to be tested where it migrates into and becomes lodged in flaws open to the surface; (2) excess penetrant is removed; (3) a developer suspension is applied, which absorbs the penetrant entrapped in flaws and provides a contrasting background to the exuding dye indications; and (4) inspection under visible or fluorescent light, depending on whether a visible or fluorescent dye was employed, to locate discontinuities. These steps are illustrated in the following figures taken from appellant’s brief:

Appellant’s invention substitutes for the prior art penetrant one containing a compound, which, initially either colorless or only slightly colored, undergoes a color-forming or color-intensifying reaction in situ with the solid particles of the developer. The following are the appellant’s independent claims:

1. In the method of testing a solid object for surface discontinuities in which a liquid penetrant is applied to the surface to be tested, excess penetrant is removed, and a non-aqueous developer suspension of solid particles is applied to the surface to absorb penetrant which has become lodged in surface discontinuities, the improvement which comprises using a penetrant in which there is dissolved a compound which undergoes a color-forming reaction with said solid particles in said developer suspension so that said penetrant undergoes a distinct color change upon being contacted with said developer suspension, said color change making it possible to detect surface discontinuities in which said penetrant was lodged.
2. The method of testing a solid object for surface discontinuities which comprises applying to said surface a penetrant composition containing a dye dissolved therein which undergoes a color change upon contact with clay particles, removing excess penetrant while leaving penetrant entrapped in surface flaws, applying a developer comprising clay particles in a non-aqueous liquid over the surface to initiate a color-intensifying reaction between the entrapped penetrant and the clay particles and thereafter inspecting the surface under visible light to determine the location of visible color sites produced by such reaction.4

The following figures are derived from appellant’s specification:

[668]

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

Related

Revlon, Inc. v. Carson Products Co.
602 F. Supp. 1071 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Shelcore, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durham Industries, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
745 F.2d 621 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Union Carbide Corporation v. American Can Company
724 F.2d 1567 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Union Carbide Corp. v. American Can Co.
558 F. Supp. 1154 (N.D. Illinois, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
676 F.2d 666, 213 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 713, 1982 CCPA LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mlot-fijalkowski-ccpa-1982.