In re Daniel GRAY, Richard O. Bailey, and William S. Murray

In re Daniel GRAY, Richard O. Bailey, and William S. Murray. Patent Appeal No. 2823. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Dec. 7, 1931. James J. Kennedy, of New York City, for appellants. T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C. (Howard S. Miller, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges. [MAJORITY — BLAND, Associate Judge.] BLAND, Associate Judge. The claim involved in this appeal and the claims before the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office relate to the same subject-matter as was involved in Re Daniel Gray et a1., 53 F.(2d) 520, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) -, Patent Appeal No. 2822, decided concurrently herewith. The Examiner in the appeal at bar had rejected appellants’ claims, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10, together with certain process claims not before us. On appeal to the Board of Appeals, it affirmed the action of the Examiner in rejecting the above enumerated claims, and, under rule 139', rejected claim 6 which had been allowed by the Examiner. From such action of the Board one member dissented. The reasons for the action of the majority members and views of the dissenting member of the Board" are the same as were set out in their respective opinions in Patent Appeal No. 2822, supra, to which reference is made in their opinions in this case. Appellants here dismissed the appeal as to all claims;.-.-except claim 6, upon which, they now rely rind which reads: “6. A tarnish-resisting alloy or intimate mixture comprising silver and indium, with the silver content predominating.” It will be noticed that the claim is drawn to a mixture “comprising silver and indium.” Our conclusions reached in respect to the claims involved in Patent Appeal No. 2822, supra, are controlling in the case at bar, and, for the reasons there assigned, wo affirm the decision of tho Board of Appeals. Affirmed.