Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer

104 F.2d 791, 26 C.C.P.A. 1436, 42 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 127, 1939 CCPA LEXIS 209
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJune 26, 1939
DocketNo. 4167
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 104 F.2d 791 (Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer) 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
Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer, 104 F.2d 791, 26 C.C.P.A. 1436, 42 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 127, 1939 CCPA LEXIS 209 (ccpa 1939).

Opinion

JacksoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal in an interference proceeding from a decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of invention to appellee, the senior party.

The interference is between patent No. 2,031,321 of appellant, dated February 18, 1936, on an application serial No. 753,080, filed November 15, 1934, and an application of appellee for reissue of his patent No. 2,000,037, dated May 7, 1935, on application serial No. 511,832, filed January 28, 1931.

The invention relates to means in a photographic camera for automatically determining the correct exposure of the film. The means comprise a photo-electric exposure meter under the control of both the adjusting means for the speed of the shutter and the ad[1437]*1437justing means for controlling the amount of light admitted through the camera lens to the film.

The count originated in the patent to appellant and reads:

The combination of a photographic camera with a photo electric exposure meter, including a lens system, means for adjusting the opening of said lens system, a shutter, means for adjusting the speed of said shutter, and means correlating both of said adjusting means with said photo electric exposure meter, said correlating means being adapted to control the reading of said exposure meter when either of said adjustment means are actuated, the said correlating means upon setting of one of said adjusting means being adapted to control the final adjustment of the other adjusting means to set up a predetermined reading in the exposure meter by both of said adjustments.

Responding to an order to show cause why judgment should not be entered against him, appellant moved to dissolve the interference on the ground that appellee had no right to make the claim corresponding to the count, and also on the ground that appellee was not entitled to a reissue of his patent.

The Primary Examiner denied the motion to dissolve, and thereafter the Examiner of Interferences awarded priority of invention of the subject matter in issue to appellee.

The sole question to be determined here is whether appellee has the right to make the claim corresponding to the count, the contention that he is not entitled to the reissue of his patent not being raised before us in the reasons for appeal. If appellee has such right, then the decision appealed from must be affirmed.

The original application of appellee contained three figures illustrative of his structure. During the prosecution of his application he was required to add additional drawings, the letter of the Primary Examiner, dated January 11, 1981, stating:

* * * The ground of incomplete disclosure bas been used before in tbis case in rejecting tbe claims and tbe requirement for tbe correction of tbe drawing has been discussed in two previous Office actions. Tbis action is accordingly made final.
In summary, Claims 22-24 will be declared allowable and tbis ease passed to issue when tbe above mentioned two new figures are presented and accepted and added to tbe drawings. These two new figures will be a clean copy of proposed Fig. 4 and a sketch of tbe proposed new figure which will be labeled Fig. 5.

This requirement of the examiner, we think, must have been for the purpose of clarification.

The controversy here centers around Fig. 5. Appellant contends that the original disclosure of appellee is not sufficient to support the said figure.

Figure 5 and its reading by the Primary Examiner are as follows:

In the Riszdorfer reissue application in tbe form shown in Fig. 5, tbe photoelectric cell 46, shown behind tbe diaphragm 47 is in tbe circuit 85, 37 with tbe
[1438]

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

Related

Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, Inc.
782 F. Supp. 149 (D. Maine, 1992)
Fontijn v. Okamoto
518 F.2d 610 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
Harold S. Hemstreet v. William S. Rohland
433 F.2d 1403 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1970)
Walter H. Wirkler v. Corles M. Perkins and Alfred Bennett
245 F.2d 502 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 F.2d 791, 26 C.C.P.A. 1436, 42 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 127, 1939 CCPA LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuppenbender-v-riszdorfer-ccpa-1939.