Citations
- 171 F.2d 310
Full opinion text
HATFIELD, Judge.
This is an appeal in an interference proceeding from the decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office awarding priority of invention of the single count in issue to Richard Paul Carlton, appellee.
The interference involves the application of appellee, No. 433,028, filed March 2, 1942, and the application of appellant, No. 469,-232, filed December 16, 1942.
The count in issue reads:
“A flexible abrasive article comprising a flexible backing material anjd abrasive ■grains adhesively secured thereto by means of a base adhesive comprising a mixture of a soluble silicate and a resin, said adhesive layer being protected from the atmosphere hy a resin size coating.”
The invention in issue relates to an abrasive article in which the abrasive grains are adhesively secured to a flexible backing by means of a mixture of soluble silicate and a resin in which an additional resin coating, called a “size coating,” is employed as a protection from the atmosphere.
Appellee Carlton submitted no testimony but sought to obtain the benefit of an earlier application, No. 261,069, filed by him on March 10, 1939. Neither the Primary Examiner nor the Board of Interference Examiners found it necessary to determine whether appellee should be accorded the date of the earlier filed application. The Board held that March 2, 1942, the filing date of appellee’s application directly involved in this interference, was sufficient to entitle him to an award of priority.
Appellant submitted testimony which, he .alleges, shows conception and reduction to practice of the invention in issue by him in 1936 or 1937. He also relies on two prior .applications, No. 137,796, filed April 19, 1937, and No. 336,212, filed May 20, 1940, which applications were copending with appellant’s application here involved and which were filed by appellant, Raymond C. Benner, Albert L. Ball, and Walter D. Rossow as joint inventors.
The decision in this case depends, to a great extent, upon the interpretation of the involved count. We, therefore, consider that matter at the outset. The count originated in appellant’s application. It calls for an adhesive layer “comprising a mixture