Case ID: app-dc_44/html/0299-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Robb", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE SCHUTTE.
    Patents; Patentability; Novelty.
    There is nothing patentably novel in the invention of a pavement consisting of a layer of hydraulic concrete covered by a thin layer of bituminous cement, with mineral matter embedded therein. (Following lie Groves, 41 App. D. C. 316.)
    No. 995.
    Patent Appeals.
    Submitted November 11, 1915.
    Decided January 3, 1915.
    
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting an application for a patent.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Messrs. Menu in & Swenarton and Mr. W. B. Morion for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Minnott E. Porter and Mr. W. B. Ballard for the Commissioner of Patents.
   Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting appellant’s application for a patent. We reproduce counts 1 and 2 of the three counts of the application:

“1. A pavement composed of two elements, to wit: a relatively thick supporting layer of hydraulic concrete forming the body of the pavement, and a thin adhesive cushioning and sealing layer of bituminous cement applied to the upper surface of the said body.

“2. A pavement composed of a relatively thick layer of hydraulic concrete which forms the body of the pavement, said layer having applied directly to its upper surface a relatively thin adhesive cushioning and sealing layer of bituminous cement, with mineral matter embedded therein.”

This alleged invention, expressed in substantially the same claims, was before us on the appeal of Groves (Re Groves, 41 App. D. C. 316), and we then affirmed the decision of the Patent Office that nothing patentably novel was shown. The application in the present case was filed about a year prior to that in the Groves Case, but this fact in no way affects the situation. We agree with the Patent Office that no reason has been shown why the same conclusion should not be reached in this case as in that of Groves. We therefore affirm the decision. Affirmed.