through them emanates from a number of sources spaced transversely throughout the bed of fuel in the shaft, and the remaining ducts being arranged in juxtaposition to the walls of said embedded portion of the retort.'
The rejection of the Patent Office was based primarily on the Bergh Patent No. 1,618,566, although other patents are cited to show certain ancillary features.
It seems to the Court that the claims in the pending application do not define structures which are patentably distinct from those of the Bergh patent. This being so, plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief sought. The Court is unable to say that the Patent Office was in error in its rulings.
The complaint, therefore, will be dismissed.
Counsel will prepare and submit on notice findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.