Citations
- 56 F.2d 891
Full opinion text
LENROOT, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming a decision of the Examiner, rejecting, for want of patentability in view of the prior art, claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 of appellant’s application, the remaining claims having been allowed.
Upon argument before us, appellant’s counsel announced that the appeal as to claims 20 and 27 would be abandoned, and that the appeal would be limited to claims 18 and 26, which read as follows:
“18. A towel holder comprising a easing having a chamber for the clean towel, feed rolls mounted therein, the towel being adapted to depend from said chamber in position t a towel cabinet, and was cited merely to show a roll for pressing a towel against a feed roll.
Appellant concedes that Shattuck is a valid reference for that part of the claims relating to the location of the feed rolls, but contends that invention lies in the latter part of the claims, relating to the device for locking the feed rolls and preventing delivery of the towel.
The Patent Office tribunals held that there would be no invention in omitting the coin control feature of Clawson and making the changes necessary to operate the device manually, without the use of a coin, in the manner that appellant has done.
Appellant in his specification states:
“The object of my invention is to provide a towel cabinet in which the delivery of the towel is prevented by a locking means which may or may not be controlled by the deposit of a coin, as preferred, the locking means when released allowing a predetermined length of the toweling to be delivered before the mechanism again becomes locked to cheek further delivery. * * *
“The operation of the push rod 23 may, of course, be regulated by the deposit of a coin in the casing. Such mechanism, however, would form no part of this invention and I do not illustrate it or claim it herein.”
Appellant further contends that he has provided a chain upon which there is a lug, which chain and lug directly pass around his roll 13, thereby dispensing with a great deal of mechanism shown in the Clawson patent, and that this constitutes invention.
However, the claims here in issue do not specify this feature, and therefore it cannot be considered.
We are in accord with the conclusion reached by the Board of Appeals, and its decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.