Kirby v. Clements
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal from a decision of an Assistant Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding, awarding priority of invention to the appellee, George Clements.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal from a decision of an Assistant Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding, awarding priority of invention to the appellee, George Clements. The invention relates to a vacuum cleaner and will be sufficiently understood by a reading of the two claims here reproduced : “1. A vacuum cleaner consisting of a casing provided with a pump chamber and a suction chamber separated therefrom by a dividing wall provided with…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Robb
In an interference proceeding wé must give to claims the broadest interpretation which they will reasonably support, and *15we are not at liberty to import limitations therein to meet the exigencies of a particular situation. Miel v. Young, 29 App. D. C. 481; Lindmark v. Hodgkinson, 31 App. D. C. 612. The reasonable presumption is that an inventor intended to protect his invention broadly, and, consequently, the scope of a claim in an interference proceeding should not be restricted beyond the fair and ordinary meaning of the words. The issue here is that of priority under the claims as drawn,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clark v. CamrasCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1953
- Jan A. Rajchman v. John M. Herbert and Anthony W. SimpsonCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963