Case ID: ccpa_56-2/html/1342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

412 F. 2d 1407; 162 USPQ 361
    In re Louise H. Brown and Ronald Swidler
    (No. 8075)
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
    July 24, 1969
    
      James W. Geriak, Lyon & Lyon (Douglas B. Olson, of counsel) for appellants.
    
      Joseph Sohimmel (Raymond B. Martin, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
    [Oral argument December 6, 1968 by Mr. Olson and Mr. Martin]
    Before Worley, Chief Judge, Rich, Almond, and Baldwin, Associate Judges.
    
   Per Curiam.

By order of the court, appellants’ petition for rehearing is granted only to the extent of changing the language of the original opinion dated February 20, 1969, 56 CCPA 1339, 406 F.2d 780, 160 USPQ 669, as follows:

In line two of page 3 of the opinion, change “olefin” to “olefinic acid.”

Delete the first eleven lines of the text on page 5 of the opinion, and insert therefor:

“examiner and the board deprives uS of the benefit of 'their views on that particular issue and we do not cohsider it. In re Fong, 54 CCPA 1482, 378 F. 2d 977, 154 USPQ 25; In re Moureu, 52 CCPA 1363, 345 F. 2d 595, 145 USPQ 452. In any event, appellants’ disclosure speaks of times “from as long as several days to as short as * * * a. few seconds.”
The difference between Sehirm and Perkins with regard to the presence of water, does not, we feel, have the significance which appellants attempt to attribute to it. Viewing the teachings of Sehirm and Perkins as a whole, it seems to us that, when alkylating a phenol with an olefin or substituted olefin containing at.”

Almond, J., joins in this order but adheres to his original concurrence.