Thompson v. Coe

MILLER, Associate Justice.

The invention claimed in this case is for a process of rust-proofing metallic objects. The three claims selected by appellants as typical are set out in the margin.1 The District Court decided that none of the claims recites anything amounting to invention over the prior art. Appellants challenge other findings of the court which are concerned with the sufficiency of evidence to support particular claims and with particular references upon which the Commissioner relied. But it is not necessary to consider these contentions. It is obvious, we think, that there is…