In re Kingston

This controversy is before us by appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the *1014examiner’s rejection of six claims (no claim being allowed) numbered 39 to 44, inclusive, of appellant’s application for patent relating to a metal body adapted to be sealed to glass. .Another claim, numbered 45, the status of which is hereinafter stated, is listed with the appealed claims.

Claims 39, 40, and 42 read as follows:

'39. A metal body for providing a vacuum-tight seal-to-glass comprising a quarternary alloy of iron, nickel, chromium and a fourth metal,…