Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/In re Watson

In re Watson

175 F.2d 451, 36 C.C.P.A. 1132
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJune 28, 1949
DocketNo. 5552
StatusPublished

This text of 175 F.2d 451 (In re Watson) 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 Watson, 175 F.2d 451, 36 C.C.P.A. 1132 (ccpa 1949).

Opinion

O’Connell, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting claims 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 in appellant’s application for a patent for “a new and useful Improvement in Staked Fasteners.” Four article claims, Nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19, and two method claims, Nos. 30 and 31, have been allowed.

The references are:

Anderson, 945,737, January 11, 1910.
Darling, 1,112,525, October 6,1914.
Meaker, 1,156,798, October 12, 1915.
Hasselquist, 1,919,552, July 25, 1933.
Johnson, 2,102,558, December 14, 1937.
Olson, 2,225,654, December 24, 1940.

The cited patent to Hasselquist and certain patents to Alamade and Lundberg are relied upon in appellant’s brief but are not reproduced in the record. Therefore, those patents may not properly be considered by the court. See In re Buser, 29 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1196, 129 F. (2d) 710, 54 USPQ 319. The patent to Johnson cited by the examiner and the board was not relied upon by either of them in the rejection of the appealed claims nor is it included in the record. Accordingly, that patent will not be considered by the court. See also In re Upson, 34 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1022, 161 F. (2d) 282, 73 USPQ 401.

The appealed claims are drawn to an article and are submitted in three groups, each group being specific to a different feature of the article. In the first group are claims 9 and its two dependent claims, 10 and 11; in the second, claim 13 and its dependent claim 14; and in the third, claim 15. Because of the importance attaching to certain details of the involved subject matter, it is deemed necessary to a clear understanding of the issue to reproduce and hereinafter make reference to the following drawing which was filed with appellant’s application.

[1134]*1134 RhltkeKiKiRNKBiDybiaixqvUcS2nHvbzDWsXYQFYoCcclex7OVvRLgMwqMrdPUiCBrG44zmBx4wE9OuOB7gGQ5GxuES5RDpuJDx2cb3xa0tkbiWo8KlHajq8lcEiEYJ7ZXlOhnJk9YKEK5cfGdLjM0n

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

Related

In re Buser
129 F.2d 710 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1942)
In re Upson
161 F.2d 282 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1947)
Rosenberg v. John Hassall, Inc.
73 F.2d 58 (Second Circuit, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 F.2d 451, 36 C.C.P.A. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-watson-ccpa-1949.