Orlan M. Arnold v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents

237 F.2d 584, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 133, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5362
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 1956
Docket13171_1
StatusPublished

This text of 237 F.2d 584 (Orlan M. Arnold v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Orlan M. Arnold v. Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents, 237 F.2d 584, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 133, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5362 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appeals, consolidated in this court, are from a judgment of the District Court dismissing two complaints which sought an order directing the Commissioner of Patents to issue to appellant patents based on two applications filed with the Patent Office. 1 The complaints were filed under 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952) after denial of the applications by the Patent Office, following upon adverse decisions there of the Examiner and of the Board of Appeals. The rejected claims in substance were:

(1) a method of vaporizing a substance from a body of material comprising said substance which comprises subjecting said body to an electrostatic field of frequency within the range of anomalous dispersion of the molecules of said substance at the surface of the said body; and

(2) the stimulation of chemical reactions by certain “vibratory influences” such as electrostatic fields, electric currents or sound waves, the “vibratory influences” being of a complex frequency, one component frequency being within the anomalous dispersion range of one of the reactants so that said reactant may be selectively activated.

After trial District Judge Wilkin filed an opinion 2 in which he held that the Examiner and Board of Appeals of the Patent Office were justified in finding that the claims of the applications were too broad and indefinite. With this we agree. The judgment for the Commissioner accordingly is

Affirmed.

1

. Applications Serial No. 110469 and Serial No. 576245.

2

. Reported at 144 F.Supp. 282.

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

Related

Arnold v. Watson
144 F. Supp. 282 (District of Columbia, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 F.2d 584, 111 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 133, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 103, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orlan-m-arnold-v-robert-c-watson-commissioner-of-patents-cadc-1956.