Case Name: In re Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbeil and Paul Timmerbeil
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-07-26
Citations: 50 C.C.P.A. 1514
Docket Number: No. 6898
Parties: In re Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbeil and Paul Timmerbeil.
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 1514–1518

Head Matter:
320 F. 2d 413; 138 USPQ 461
In re Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbeil and Paul Timmerbeil.
(No. 6898)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
July 26, 1963
Michael 8. Striker, for appellants.
Clarence W. Moore (Raymond H. Martin of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument May 1, 1963, by Mr. Striker and Mr. Martin]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges

Opinion:
Worley, Chief Judge,
delivered the oninion of the court:
All the claims in appellants' application for a patent on a "Strapping Band Device and Method of Making Same," were rejected by the examiner as unpatentable over the prior art. In affirming that action, the Board of Appeals stated in part:
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Holmes et al., 113,518, April 11,1871.
Olmsted, 180,910, August 8,1876.
Beugler, 1,203,688, November 7,1916.
Gibausset et al. (France), 774,167, September 17, 1934.
Timmerbeil, 417,821, October 12,1934.
Titan Eisenwarenfabrik (Germany), 648,535, August 3, 1937.
The appealed claims relate to a band for securing bales, the bands having manually operable interlocking means.
Claim 2 is rejected by the Examiner as unpatentable over Gibausset et al., Tim-merbeil or Titan Eisenwarenfabrik. Claim 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 are rejected by the Examiner as unpatentable over the same references, each in view of either Olmsted or Beugler. Claim 11 is rejected by the Examiner as unpatentable over the references applied to claim 2 taken with Holmes et al.
Appellant appeals from that decision. The statute governing appeals to this court requires that:
When an appeal is taken to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the appellant shall give notice thereof to the Commissioner, and shall file in the Patent Office his reasons of appeal, specifically set forth m writing, within such time after the date of the decision appealed from, not less than sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints. [Emphasis supplied.]
Appellants' attempted compliance with that statute consists of the following reasons of appeal:
1. It was error to affirm the decision of the Examiner in his rejection of claims 2,4 to 6 and 8 to 11.
2. It was error to refuse to allow the rejected claims.
The solicitor argues that those reasons do not satisfy the statute and that the appeal should be dismissed, relying on In re Dichter, 27 CCPA 1060, 110 F. 2d 664, 45 USPQ 91, and cases cited therein.
In In re Gruschwitz, 50 CCPA 1498, 320 F. 2d 401, 138 USPQ 451, decided concurrently, the same counsel made much the same argument and relied on the same decisions as here. We hold here, as there, that the reasons of appeal are merely broad allegations that the board erred, clearly lacking the specificity the statute requires. The appeal is dismissed.
Serial No. 384,666, filed October 7, 1953.
35 U.S.C. 142.