From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Swain

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jun 27, 1946
156 F.2d 245 (C.C.P.A. 1946)

Opinion

Patent Appeal No. 5177.

June 27, 1946.

Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 358,281.

Proceeding in the matter of the application of Robert C. Swain and Pierrepont Adams for a patent on coating compositions containing ethyl cellulose. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the Primary Examiner in rejecting the application, the applicants appeal.

Affirmed.

James Edwin Archer, of Stamford, Conn., for appellants.

W.W. Cochran, of Washington, D.C., for Commissioner of Patents.

Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, JACKSON, and O'CONNELL, Associate Judges.


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 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 being all the claims in appellants' application for a patent on coating compositions containing ethyl cellulose. Claims 1, 2, and 5 were rejected as unpatentable over the prior art of record and claims 3 and 4 were rejected "as not readable on the elected species since there is no allowable generic claim."

Claim 1, which is generic, is illustrative of the subject matter and reads — "1. A coating composition containing ethyl cellulose and a resin selected from the group consisting of melamine-formaldehyde resins which have been reacted with an aliphatic alcohol containing from 4 to 7 carbon atoms wherein the molal ratio of formaldehyde to melamine is at least about 5:1 and melamine-formaldehyde resins alkylated with an octyl alcohol wherein the molal ratio of formaldehyde to melamine is at least about 4:1, the proportion of ethyl cellulose and melamine resin being in a ratio between about 3.1 and about 1:3."

Claim 1 differs from claims 2 and 5 in that claim 2 defines a coating composition reacted with n-butyl alcohol and claim 5 recites "the molal ration of formaldehyde to melamine is between about 4:1 and about 6:1."

This appeal and companion appeal, 156 F.2d 244 were discussed together in appellants' brief inasmuch as the references relied upon by the tribunals of the Patent Office were identical in both cases, the grounds of rejection in each case were the same, and both cases relate to coating compositions containing ethyl cellulose and compatible portions of certain melamine-formaldehyde resins. It is deemed unnecessary therefore to repeat and discuss the cited references together with the validity of the grounds of rejection.

The claimed range of proportions herein having been determined by routine experimentation and no critical result having been established by a proper showing, the decision of the Board of Appeals in its rejection of all the claims herein is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

In re Swain

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jun 27, 1946
156 F.2d 245 (C.C.P.A. 1946)
Case details for

In re Swain

Case Details

Full title:In re SWAIN et al

Court:Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Date published: Jun 27, 1946

Citations

156 F.2d 245 (C.C.P.A. 1946)

Citing Cases

In re Swain

Appellants assert that the decisions by the tribunals of the Patent Office were erroneously based on a…