Case Name: In re Robert R. Ernst
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-03-02
Citations: 59 C.C.P.A. 970
Docket Number: No. 8599
Parties: In re Robert R. Ernst
Judges: Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and Rao, Judge, sitting by designation
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 970–971

Head Matter:
172 USPQ 663
In re Robert R. Ernst
(No. 8599)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
March 2, 1972
John R. Schovee (Schovee & Boston), attorneys of record, for appellant.
S. Wm. Cochran for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, of counsel.
[Oral argument December 7, 1971 by Mr. Schovee and Mr. McKelvey]
Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and Rao, Judge, sitting by designation

Opinion:
Pek Curiam:
Appellant's petition for rehearing is granted only to the extent of changing the language of the original opinion dated December 30, 1971, 59 CCPA 966,451 F. 2d 1404,172 USPQ 236, by substituting the following paragraph for the one bridging pages 7 and 8 of the opinion (last paragraph, column 1, page 238 USPQ; last paragraph, column 2, page 1406 F.2d) :
At oral argument appellant alleged that claims 2, 4-5, 23, and 27-29 further distinguish over the prior art since they call for (in varying degrees of specificity) sterilizing gas mixtures, including ethylene oxide mixtures and fluorocarbon mixtures. After reviewing the record on appeal, we cannot find any indication that appellant argued before the board that there was any patentable significance to that feature, nor was such an argument presented in appellant's brief. As we said in In re Touvay, 58 CCPA 809, 811, 435 F. 2d 1344, 168 USPQ 357, 359 (1971), "Ordinarily we do not consider arguments directed to the significance of particular limitation at this late stage unless they were raised below." We see no reason to deviate from'that rule here.