Case Name: In re MALOCSAY
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-06-02
Citations: 299 F. 1021
Docket Number: No. 1619
Parties: In re MALOCSAY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 299
Pages: 1021–1021

Head Matter:
In re MALOCSAY.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 12, 1924.
Decided June 2, 1924.)
No. 1619.
Patents <@=>51 (I) — Claim for improvement to phonograph record carrier properly refused.
A claim for a phonograph record carrier, a spring motor therefor, and means controlled by extent of rotation of record carrier for calling attention. to the fact that there is not sufficient spring power to play another record, held properly rejected as anticipated.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
In the matter of the application of Prank Malocsay. Prom a decision refusing a claim, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
H. H. Benjamin, of Washington, D. C., and John R. Lotsch, of New York City, for appellant.
Theodore A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDPR, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing a claim for patent. The claim is self-explanatory and reads as follows: i
"15. In a phonograph, a record carrier, a spring motor therefor, and means controlled by the extent of rotation of the record carrier for calling attention to the fact that there is not sufficient spring power to play another record."
The Examiners in Chief resolved the doubt they entertained as to two other claims in applicant's favor, and accordingly reversed the Examiner as to those claims; they being more specific than the claim here in issue, which they disallowed. The Assistant Commissioner affirmed the Board as to this claim, on the ground that the substance of the invention, if any, lies in properly marking the graduations on the dial, and that, as .Glass (one of the references) has everything except the specific markings of applicant, the claim is not distinguishable from that reference.
Eor the reasons more fully stated by the Board and the Assistant Commissioner, the decision is affirmed. .
Affirmed.
®=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numb ered Digests & Indexes