MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EDWARD A. PATTON AND FORREST F. BEIL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that applying a known wood graining process to cellulosic board, an analogous material to natural wood, does not constitute patentable invention.
Appellants sought a patent for a method of ornamenting cellulosic board to simulate wood grain by applying a liquid material in a pattern before stain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Patent Claims Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears from an affidavit submitted in behalf of appellants and from appellants’ brief that a product made in accordance with their disclosure has met with “enthusiastic public acceptance.” Evidently this was presented for the purpose of indicating commercial success. However, it is well settled that evidence of commercial success may be controlling only where the issue of patent-ability is otherwise doubtful. In re Renstrom, 174 F. 2d 140, 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1020; In re Gillette, 175 F. 2d 787, 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1172. In the present case we have no doubt that invention is lacking. Therefore, the arguments relative to commercial success are not persuasive toward allowance of the claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from relative to claims 34, 35, and 36 is affirmed, and the rejection of claim 37, which does not read on the elected species is also affirmed since it falls with generic claim 34.
Affirmed.
JACKSON, Judge, retired, recalled to participate. O’CONNELL, Judge, because of illness, did not participate in the hearing or decision of this case.
WORLEY, Judge, was not present at the argument of this case but, by agreement of counsel at the time of argument, participated in the decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Application of Karl E. Prindle and Ross C. Reed, 297 F.2d 251 (C.C.P.A. 1962)
Authorities Cited
- Potts v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597 (U.S. 1895)
- Pa. R.R. Co. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., 110 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1884)
- Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Elec. Supply Co., 144 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1892)
- Application of Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732 (C.C.P.A. 1952)
- In re Switzer, 166 F.2d 827 (C.C.P.A. 1948)
- In re Green, 97 F.2d 130 (C.C.P.A. 1938)
- Application of Gillette, 175 F.2d 787 (C.C.P.A. 1949)
- In re Corbett, 142 F.2d 78 (C.C.P.A. 1944)
- Application of Renstrom, 174 F.2d 140 (C.C.P.A. 1949)
- Matter of the Application of Nathan la Verne and Albert A. LaVerne, 229 F.2d 470 (C.C.P.A. 1956)