# Application of Albert A. Carletti and Welsh C. Whittlesey

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · March 19, 1964 · 328 F.2d 1020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449929

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Albert A. CARLETTI and Welsh C. WHITTLESEY
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** March 19, 1964
- **Citations:** 328 F.2d 1020; 51 C.C.P.A. 1094
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Worley
- **Judges:** Worley, Rich, Smith, Almond
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9449929

## Opinion text

WORLEY, Chief Judge
(concurring).
It is to be hoped that the instant appeal will culminate the final phase of an extended campaign by the United States Army against the United States Patent Office and convince the former of the futility of further pursuit. The Army objective appears to be to carve out, isolate and contain a certain area of the public domain in which the Patent Office stoutly contends the Army has no territorial rights as against the paramount interest of the public.
The initial probing actions by the Army have been repulsed by shock troops of the Patent Office largely on the strength of certain intelligence provided by one Somerville and a William M. Mixer. Additional sorties have proved equally fruitless, as was the final attack *1023 launched against the main force. Thus far the pen has proved mightier than the sword.
In more “paténtese” terms, the examiner and the board have expressly held that the Somerville spud washer and the Mixer washer would make appellant’s device obvious to one of ordinary skill in this particular art. Those references are more than ample to show that the instant gasket is innocent of any patentable characteristics. Indeed, the Mixer washer is particularly appropriate because, aside from its spaced grooves in common with the instant gasket, in its actual use it is as invisible to the eye as is appellant’s bunghole gasket.
There can be no doubt that the rejection is clearly correct and should be affirmed. *

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449929. Public record. Not legal advice.