Case ID: f_299/html/1020-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBB, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re MYERS.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted May 13, 1924.
    Decided June 2, 1924.)
    No. 1660.
    Patents <@=>51 (I) — Claims for process for making brick loo cream properly rejected.
    Patent claims for a process of making brick ice cream, composed of a plurality of layers of differently flavored material, other than those limited to particular process employed, held properly rejected as covered by the prior art.
    <3=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexer
    Appeal' from the Commissioner of Patents.
    In the matter of the application of Wilson R. Myers. From a decision denying certain claims, applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Albert E. Dieterich, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    Theodore A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
    Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEE, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a Patent Office decision denying certain claims for a patent relating to a process of making brick ice cream, composed of a plurality of layers of differently flavored material. A mold is ihoved beneath three containers in succession, thus receiving a layer of ice cream from each container, each layer being formed on top of the previously formed layer.

The Assistant Commissioner, reversing the lower tribunals and resolving a doubt he entertained in favor of the applicant, allowed three claims limited to the particular process employed, saying:

“The process is simple, it is true; but it is efficient in making the particular confection, and it is believed these claims should be allowed.”

For the reasons fully set forth in the opinions of the three tribunals, we concur in the finding that the other more broadly drawn claims read on the prior art.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.