Muskat v. Schmelkes

From a decision of the Board of Interference Examiners of the United States Patent Office awarding to Schmelkes priority in four *839counts corresponding to claims taken from three Muskat and Chenicek patents, Muskat and Chenicek have here appealed. The counts all define a product, and since we ai’e not concerned here with the differences in the breadth of the counts, count 1 is illustrative and reads:

1. Chlorinated melamine characterized in that a substantial amount of the chlorine in said chlorinated melamine is present as active chlorine.

The invention relates to chlorinated melamine, which is…