# Application of Erich Timmerbeil, Hugo Timmerbell and Paul Timmerbeil

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · July 26, 1963 · 320 F.2d 413

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449492

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Erich TIMMERBEIL, Hugo Timmerbeil and Paul Timmerbeil
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** July 26, 1963
- **Citations:** 320 F.2d 413; 50 C.C.P.A. 1514; 138 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 461; 1963 CCPA LEXIS 295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Martin
- **Judges:** Almond, Martin, Rich, Smith, Worley
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449492

## Opinion text

MARTIN, Judge
(concurring).
As I stated in PA 6885, CCPA, 320 F.2d 401 , which has identical reasons of appeal, 1 it should be remembered that the question of whether specific reasons of appeal are adequate depends upon the factual situation in the appeal in which the particular reasons are filed. Where in one case the reasons of appeal set forth by appellant would be sufficient, the same reasons in another appeal involving a different set of facts might not be adequate.
Therefore, when an appeal is dismissed, I believe it is incumbent upon us to state specifically wherein the reasons of appeal are insufficient. Here, it seems to me that since several references have been cited by the examiner and the board as the basis for the rejection of the appealed claims, appellants failed to comply with the provisions of 35 U.S. C. § 142 in not setting forth their position as to these references in their reasons of appeal. Under these circumstances I would dismiss this appeal.
. The same reasons of appeal can also be found in In re Arnold and Brandt, 315 F.2d 951 , 50 CCPA 1166.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449492. Public record. Not legal advice.