Case Name: Application of 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: 320 F.2d 413
Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 6898
Parties: Application of Erich TIMMERBEIL, Hugo Timmerbeil and Paul Timmerbeil.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 320
Pages: 413–416

Head Matter:
50 CCPA
Application of Erich TIMMERBEIL, Hugo Timmerbeil and Paul Timmerbeil.
Patent Appeal No. 6898.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
July 26, 1963.
Michael S. Striker, New York City, for appellants.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges.

Opinion:
WORLEY, Chief Judge.
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 un-patentable 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. 774,167 September 17, 1934 (France)
Timmerbeil 417,821 October 12, 1934
Titan Eisenwaren-fabrik (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 Gibaus-set et al., Timmerbeil or Titan Ei-senwarenfabrik. Claims 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 unpat-entable over the references applied to cláim 2 taken with Holmes et al."
Appellant appeals from that decision. The statute governing appeals to this fourt 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 in xoriting, 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, 110 F.2d 664, 27 CCPA 1060, and cases cited therein.
In In re Gruschwitz, Patent Appeal 6885, CCPA, 320 F.2d 401, 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.
Dismissed.
. Serial No. 384,666, filed October 7, 1953.
. 35 U.S.C. § 142.