IN RE TULLY

No. 1781.

12 F.2d 624 (1926)

In re TULLY.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Decided April 5, 1926.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

A. V. Cushman, of Washington, D. C., and Odin Roberts, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.

T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.


ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing claims 6, 7, and 9 of appellant's application for a patent. Claims 6 and 7 cover a textile fabric garment having a multiply section stiffened by impregnation with a translucent waterproof cementitious plastic material, causing the piles to adhere to each other. Claim 9 reads as follows:

"9. Web material, having a permanent stiffness in portions thereof produced by treatment of the web subsequent to the formation of the latter, and having other portions thereof in a soft and pliable state, adapted to facilitate folding."

The Patent Office allowed nine claims to appellant, and, after a very careful review of the decisions of the Patent Office, in which the application of appellant is considered with reference to the prior art, we are constrained to the view that his real invention has been fully protected by the claims allowed him. Claims 6 and 7 were rejected on the patent to Closmann, No. 861,435, which covers substantially the same construction disclosed by applicant. Claim 9 is a copy of a claim in the patent to Huey, No. 1,390,292, on which it was rejected. It is familiar law that this claim must be given an interpretation consistent with the application in which it originated. Huey disclosed a web material with portions untreated to facilitate folding. We agree with the Patent Office that appellant has no suggestion of leaving the folded portions of his collars and cuffs untreated with that object in mind. The Patent Office has so thoroughly and satisfactorily discussed appellant's contentions that it is unnecessary further to consider them.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases