Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EASTMAN KODAK CO. v. COE

DISTRICT COURT OF UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


June 4, 1941

EASTMAN KODAK CO.
v.
COE, Com'r of Patents

The opinion of the court was delivered by: BAILEY

BAILEY, District Judge.

The chief ground upon which the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office denied the allowance of the claim sought by the plaintiff was that the product claimed was anticipated by an article described in a publication written by Konig. Konig gave a general formula for certain dye stuffs as follows:

[See Illustration in Original]

 He also stated that instead of Y a cycloseleno group might occur.

 In the plaintiff's product selenium takes the place of Y and n equals three.

 Konig does not state that he has produced such a product as the plaintiffs but in effect states that such a product may exist as a dye.

 I think that the production of a new chemical compound, even though some one has stated that such a compound may exist is an invention within the meaning of the patent laws and that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.

 Findings of Fact.

 I. This is an action under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. The plaintiff, the Eastman Kodak Company, is the sole owner of the entire right, title and interest in an application for United States Letters Patent of Leslie G. S. Brooker, for improvements in Selenotricarbocyanine Dyes filed in the United States Patent Office on March 3, 1936, Serial No. 66,859, a division of application Serial No. 651,870, filed January 16, 1933, and the improvements disclosed and claimed therein.

 II. The defendant, Conway P. Coe, is Commissioner of Patents of the United States.

 III. The complaint alleges that the defendant, by a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office dated September 16, 1939, and supplemented, upon request for reconsideration, by a decision dated October 3, 1939, has refused to grant to plaintiff on the aforesaid application Letters Patent of the United States containing twelve claims of which the following three are typical:

 1o. A selenotricarbocyanine salt.

 4. A 2, 2'-dialkylselenotricarbocyanine salt.

  7. A selenotricarbocyanine salt of the following structure:

 [See Illustration in Original]

 wherein A represents a phenylene group, R represents an alkyl group and X represents an acid radical. IV. The answer to the complaint states that the defendant refused to grant Letters Patent of the United States to the plaintiff on the ground that none of the aforesaid twelve claims defines subject matter which the defendant regarded as patentable over the following references: Konig 1,524,791 February 3, 1925 Wahl 1,863,679 June 21, 1932 White 1,990,681 February 12, 1935 Hamer, British 351,555 June 29, 1931 Hamer, British 354,826 August 19, 1931 Mills and Hamer, "Journal Chemical Society," 1920, page 1557, Konig, "Berichte," 57, page 685, Clarke, "Journal Chemical Society," 1928, pages 2314, 2318 and 2319, Phot. Journal of Great Britain, January 1928, pages 24-27.

19410604

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.