*1 COPA Application of Wagn Ole Godtfredsen. Frantz LUND and Appeal States United Court Customs Appeals. and Patent
May *2 group claims, the “R”
As set forth in nu- position the benzothiadiazine 3 of variable,2 defined cleus is “Aralkyl,” in claim as claim 15 as aralkyl,” claim 2 “mononuclear alkyl)”, “Phenyl (lower 3 as in claim “phenethyl.” “benzyl” claim Appellants prepare the claimed com- reacting a,a,a-trifluoro-TO- pounds toluidene, Levinson, Westfield, Lawrence J. S. N. (N. Sayre, Alpher, Dale Robert New City, Smith, Plains,
York Merle J. Scotch with excess chlorosulfonic acid in the J., counsel), appellants. N. for presence alkali metal chloride to of an Schimmel, Joseph Washington, D. C. yield 5-trifluoromethylaniline-2,4-disul- (Jack Armore, Washington, C., E. D. fonyl compound treat- chloride. That counsel), of Pat- Commissioner yield aqueous ed with ammonia to 5-tri- ents. fluoromethyl-2,4-disulfamylaniline, RICH, Acting Judge, Before Chief
MARTIN, ALMOND, SMITH and
Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATR
ICK*
KIRKPATRICK, Judge. appeal
This is an from decision Appeals affirming Board 2-4, examiner’s of claims turn, derivative, reacted latter appellants’ application1 and 16 in en- RCHO, aldehyde the formula with Dihydrobenzothiadia- titled “Substituted above, yield the R is as defined where zines.” the 3- compounds. To obtain claimed example, compound benzyl of claim matter of the 5- with phenylacetaldehyde is reacted relates to certain 3-substituted-6-triflu- trifluoromethyl-2,4-disulfamylaniline. oromethyl-7-sulfamyl-3, 4-dihydro-l, 4-benzothiadiazine-l, 1-dioxides of According appellants, the claimed formula “strongly compounds saluretic exert expelling] diuretic [water
[sodium expelling] useful and are effects” hyper- heart conditions treatment com- shows that The record tension. generally more are pounds claims corresponding 3-unsub- than active 3-aliphatically substituted stituted specific compounds compounds, claimed, Disclosed, Judge, com- but not District of Eastern District Senior 5-position pounds by designation. Pennsylvania, sitting substituted alkyl. halogen lower August 6, 831,949, having greatest dehyde 6-phenylcaproaldehyde; activ- claims 3 and [and] ity. diarylalkanals, particu- [and] larly diaryl alka- mononuclear lower background information With P, nals, diphenylacetaldehyde, such mind, concerning appellants’ invention a- P-diphenylpropionaldehyde, presented us we turn to the issues ** phenyl-P-phenylpropionaldehyde. decision of board and *3 added). (Emphasis appeal. issues are reasons of quite As those nature, in shall discuss diverse we note, board, that We did separately. each alkyl provided the above alde- radicals range, hydes all fall limited within Rejection The 35 U.S.C. § exceeding atoms, none and five carbon rejected claims 15 and examiner aryl provided radicals “failing properly 16 as define in- hydro- aldehydes phenyl above all are require- in vention accordance with the phenyl. carbon substituted ments of 35 112.” He was of U.S.C. “aralkyl” expressions that the Appellants view and the in- have not defined aralkyl,” “aralkyl” scope “mononuclear are em- which tended of the terms and ployed aralkyl” specifica- in those claims to define sub- their “mononuclear in molecule, 3-position circumstances, stituent in tion. we must Under the “beyond scope give are possible disclosure” those terms their broadest having appellants’ specification, in just found meaning determining what “sufficiently that the not pellants claiming disclosure was mat- are as the representative support the they regard breadth of ter which as their inven- agreed. Sus, the claims.” The board tion.3 In re See CCPA disagree Appellants position, with that following portion and contend that “aralkyl” “mono- terms specification, of their which describes aralkyl” terms, nuclear are but are broad aldehyde employed to intro- reactants objectionable for that alone reason 3-substituent, provides duce the suffi- supported by the if those terms are support cient for claims 16: specification properly define sub * ** Among aldehyde the suitable ject matter described therein. Consonant reactants be mentioned: aral- purpose behind section kanals, particularly mononuclear ar no broader invention claimed' should be (lower alkanals), phenylaeet- such as the writ set than invention aldehyde, a-phenylpropionaldehyde, forth fS- specifi description ten phenylpropionaldehyde, p-phenyl-w- contained o,
butyraldehyde, p-tolylaeetal- m, and cation. Examples range purpose, adopt from 3. For that we the definition CnIl2n+2. eicosane,. “aryl” methane, through CH4, set forth in the authorities list- homologs. higher C20H42, * ed in footnote of In F.2d re Sus at 306 * * addition, (The 49 CCPA 1306. we find Condensed Chemi- 39). following “alkyl,” Dictionary, Ed., p. definitions of “al- cal Sixth * * * “aralkyl” alkyl. kane” and radical the same authori- A monovalent hydro- aliphatic : ties derived from an alkyl. paraffin hydrocarbon hydro- A radical of one carbon removal represented ethyl-, gen atom, methyl-, which as de- by dropping general propyl- rived from an alkane Their formula * * * hydrogen (Hackh’s one from the formula. Cnl-Un-I-!-. Examples ethyl, pro- C2H5-; Dictionary, Ed., Third Chemical pyl, CH3CH2CH2-; isopropyl, p. 33). ** * (CH3)2CH-; (The aralkyl. etc. A radical Dictionary. aryl hy- group Condensed Chemical is substituted for a Ed., p. 41). drogen alkyl. Sixth atom of an (Hackh’s Dictionary, alkane. General term a saturat- Chemical aliphatic hydrocarbon; 71). paraf- Ed., p. ed Third hydrocarbon. fin Its formula aralkyl” terms used are the same as the terms think We n “mononuclear they em- specification aralkyl” so here are broad used —are not described matter the invention described brace broader than means Manifestly, appellants’ invention specification. the terms actual examples. “aryl” “alkyl” encompass adequate representative See far more Holmen, F.2d phenyl groups and carbon In re than also Cavallito, atoms, F.2d five chains of than carbon less respectively, appellants set have 49 CCPA specification. The term forth in their of claims We affirm n “aryl,” example, enough to is broad section 112. and 16 under multi-ring compounds, mention include Rejection on of which do not find presented Of- the Patent The issue Similarly, specification. the term “al *4 2-4, 16 as 15 and fice of claims kyl” sufficiently to include radi broad pat- Margerison “unpatentable the hydrocarbons over” paraffin cals derived from which, as insofar ent is one length greater a far than five of chain aware, this court has never been before specification, ap In their carbon atoms. present the context. pellants the alde themselves characterize hydes synthesize pres they employ to the 3,095,446, Margerison patent is- The compounds ent As as “lower alkanals.” 25, 1963, June on sued Cavallito, re we stated in In processes May relates to filed 363, 48 720: 7-sulfamyl- preparation the of certain for 4-benzothiadiazine-l, 4-dihydro-l, Moreover, selection of the general formula of examples exemplary 1-dioxides ma- and other support
terial used as the disclosure to adequately representa-
a claim must be
tive area covered it.
some instances a limited disclosure typical
which is areas cov- various greater may
ered a claim be of determining patentable
value in
characteristics claimed com-
pounds more than a extensive disclo-
sure would be if related to a portion the area. limited Margerison re- generic formula The its within includes produced that one Thus it seems to us skilled above appellants’ compounds specifi- scope art would learn from hindsight from aryl alkyl claims, selection that certain or radicals cation appropriate sub- purposes column-long list of would be suitable for the Margerison4 invention, any aryl radical or disclosed stituents nar- compounds .alkyl yields radical would be so suitable. Sus, claims, 4. One supra. question There but is no claims rowest Margeri- though disputed processes disclosed terms — aryl, carboeyelic, patent, kenyl, carbo- substituted In the are said to R2' R2" alkyl, aryl-lower carboeyelic "hydrogen alkylR;¡ eyelic aryl, be or lowin' “stands heterocyclic-lower aryl heterocyclic al- primarily halogen, g. fluorine, or for bro- e. specific groups mine, kyl. particularly are disclosed iodine or chlorine” but Various generic may represent alkyl, g. exemplify the above each of also “lower e. stating methyl patentee ethyl, halogeno-lower alkyl, terms, that “carbo- or or may represented alkyl aryl-lower g. trifluoromethyl." cyclic According e. carboeyelic aryl-lower variety monocyclic patent, represent al- a wide Ri (Em- benzyl 2-phenylethyl.” groups, among kyl, g. of substituent which are e. hydrogen, alkyl, phasis supplied) lower substituted lower alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkyl, cycloal- lower preparing compounds son for appellants’ process
appears identical respects. compounds
in all material are said to be useful
so disclosed agents water to relieve excess diuretic retention, or to relieve states salt
and/or
hypertension.
Margeri-
noted that
examiner
rejected
claims
all
While the examiner
it is
patent specification
states
son
Margerison
“unpatentable
over”
continuation-in-part
our
“a
patent,
Answer
from his
it seems clear
Sep-
763,806,
any-
rely on
he
least6 does not
abandoned).”
(now
29, 1958
tember
being
thing
disclosed
described above
added).
(Emphasis
’806
either
dis-
reproduced
before us
the record
application for evidence
the abandoned
closely
processes
related
closes several
appellants
first
inventors
are not the
gen-
compounds having
preparing
presently
matter.
claimed
here,
which,
purposes
eric formula
Rather,
turned
examiner
dis-
to be identical
said
’806
2 of
the abandoned
compari-
patent. A
closed in
issued
preparation
6-
which discloses
generic
son of the
chloro-7-sulfamyl-3,4-dihydro-2-H
[1,
on the ben-
nature of the substituents
*5
reacting
5-
first
4]-benzothiadiazine
the
in
disclosed
nucleus as
zothiadiazine
chloro-4-sulfamyl-aniline-2-sulfonyl
chlo-
Margerison patent
the abandoned
with
paraformaldehyde
5-
ride with
to form
them,
in the
reveals
words
chloro-4-sulfamyl-N-
ehloromethylaniline-
strikingly
parallel.”
board,
be
the
“to
2-sulfonyl
reacting
chloride,
then
and
Margerison
Thus,
patent and
the
in both
compound
to
the latter
ammonia
with
may
and
R2"
R2'
yield
product.
para-
the desired
last
may be,
hydrogen;
and
and
Rs
Ri
graph
Example
particularly re-
2 was
things,
among many other
trifluoro-
upon by the
It reads:
lied
examiner.
benzyl
2-phenylethyl,
methyl
re-
or
and
sulfamyl-aniline-2-sulfonyl
Other
generally
spectively.
to be
It
seems
aldehydes
chlorides,
or amines
agreed
appellants and the Patent
between
process;
used in the
for exam-
above
process
appellants’
for
Office
5-methyl-4-sulfamyl-aniline-2-sul-
ple,
compounds
preparing the
is not described
fonyl chloride, 5-trifluoromethyl-^-sul-
application.5
in the ’806
ring
NH3)
product
to effect
closure. The
Margerison
and abandoned
step
process,
the first
of the above
application do contain common disclosure
paraformaldehyde
employed
where
is
preparing
process
one
com-
at least
aldehyde reactant,
subject
is the
generic
pounds
mentioned
of the
formula
Margerison
the claims of the
and
has the formula
Appellants,
apparently
in an abundance
caution,
generic
contend that
dis-
Margerison
closures of
and
are “too broad and
suggest axipellants’
diffuse” to
invention.
They
assert error in what
believe is
contrary holding
Upon
a
of the board.
record,
review of the
we are
to
inclined
agree with the
solicitor
the afore-
iirocess,
earlier.
In that
appellants
dichlorosulfo-
stated
issue
direct
nyl aniline of
arguments
the formula is
with
treated
their
“does not exist
aldehyde
an
formula
appealed
reason
RiCHO
presence
hydrogen
generic
chloride.
That
claims is not based on the broad
product
subsequently
a),
is reacted
disclosures
et
(such
amine
application.”
formula
and abandoned
R'2NH2
appellants
famyl-aniline-2-sulfonyl
or 5-
choride
filed the
here on
appeal.
(N-methyl-sulfamyl)-
aniline-
chloro-4-
may replace
2-sulfonyl
chloride
agreed
The board
in substance with
starting
reac-
in the above
material
adding
reasoning,
the examiner’s
dimethoxymethane,
;
acetalde-
tion
* * *
subject
matter of Serial
benzaldehyde
hyde, propionaldehyde,
763,806
No.
has been carried forward
phenylacetaldehyde
substitute
3,095,446,
par-
into
and
methylamine
paraformaldehyde
application may properly
ent
be re-
(Emphasis
may replace
ammonia.
ferred to for
further
elucidation or
added)
exemplification
matter
position
utiliza-
It is the examiner’s
found
the issued
So far as
reagents appearing
the italicized
tion of
products
concerned,
the final
are
process
paragraph
above
parent application
its
are
Example
in the com-
2 results
described
as one.
pound
appellants’
com-
3. The
claim
Here,
below, appellants present four
regarded
pound
as obvious
of claim 4 was
arguments
why Example
as to
2 of the
since
view of
same
used
should not be
homolog
“represents
3 and
of claim
reject
the claims under 35 U.S.C.
utility.”
§§
has
same
Claims
arguments
102 and 103. One of the
generic
were
to claim
sufficiency
relates to
disclo-
along
rejection of claim
with the
carried
anticipate
render
sure
2 to
obvious the
matter of claims 3
matter must be clear before we
One
4, appellants urging
there
discussion of
move
a more detailed
express
any compound
no
disclosure of
position and
the Patent Office
that,
scope
within
claims
Example 2,
particular-
contentions.
any event,
in-
is in fact
ly
paragraph
last
thereof which
yield
operative
compound
of claim
reject-
relied on
the Patent Office
*6
remaining
arguments
three
are
claims,
ing
present
the
in the
is
availability
legal
of
the
concerned with
Example
application.
2
abandoned ’806
Example
prior
art.
2 as
of
evidence
present
explicitly,
that
is —in the
is not
—
Appellants
first
that
contend
Margerison
specification
of the issued
ap-
the
British
entitled to
benefit of two
patent.
filing
plications,
having
date ear-
each
a
recognized
Margeri-
filing
The examiner
that Exam-
lier
the
the
than
date of
ple
application
part
pro-
2
the ’806
was not
of
the
son abandoned
under
Margeri-
express
Second, they
of the
35
visions of
U.S.C. §
patent, observing
patent
urge
son
that
the disclosure
the abandoned
application
“has not carried forward the disclosure
a refer-
becomes available as
being
by
upon
ence,
all, only
the Exam-
is
relied
date
if at
as of the issue
prior
Nevertheless,
Margerison
(25
1963),
patent
iner as the
he
art.”
June
ap-
public
was
that “the
view
time the
had access to
first
plication
incorporated by
122)
long
(see
refer-
has been
it
35
after
U.S.C. §
patent.”
evidently
quite
appellants
application
ence in the
He
their
filed
paragraph
Finally,
argue
appellants
relied
the aforementioned
on
United States.
Margerison patent,
Example
states
which
the disclosure
2 of
continuation-in-part”
application
it is “a
for-
is
carried
application.
effect,”
’806
“In
said the
is
with
ward
not common
examiner,
compound
Margerison
patent—
of claim 3 “has
rather,
applica-
been described in the
35
issued
it was omitted when
102(e).”
regarded
upon
patent
He
the ef-
U.S.C.
tion
issued was
§
position
date
fective
of that disclosure of the
It
their
filed.
is
35 U.S.C.
application
filing date,
102(e)
applicable”
’806
to be its
29
here since
is “not
§
September 1958,
Example
ten
some
months before
“the
disclosed in
invention”
465;
536,
Margerison
application
15 L.Ed.2d
As-
was
S.Ct.
’806
Marzall,
granted
U.S.App.D.C.
patent
on seff
a
v.
not “described in
(1951),
patent by
application
another filed
F.2d 660
certiorari denied
for
an
the invention
96 L.Ed.
in the
U.S.
S.Ct.
United States before
patent”
Switzer,
applicant
thereof
effect, appel-
102(e).
required by
1013.7
§
state,
have
board
lants
examiner
question
is—what has been “car-
upon
the aban-
the disclosure of
relied
Margerison
ried over” from the
’806
which,
per se,
application
use of
doned
plication
application
to the
on which
they contend,
proscribed well-estab-
is
Although
issued ?
principles
law.
lished
subject
the board
that “the
mat-
stated
ter” of the ’806
“has been
primary
us is wheth-
issue before
patent,
carried
into the
forward”
subject
3 is “de-
er the
matter of claim
referring
would seem that it was
Margerison patent
scribed”
broad, generic disclosure of the com-
appearance in Ex-
virtue of its asserted
pounds
perhaps
the other disclosure
appli-
ample
parent
2 of
applications
commonto the two
which we
cation.
opinion.
have outlined earlier
in this
is,
course,
It
incontroverti
stated,
The examiner
and the board and
description
ble that a
of an invention
disagree,
solicitor do not
that the
an
before
another
“has not carried forward the disclosure
invention, upon
applicant’s date of
being
upon by
that is
relied
the Exam-
issued,
patent is
constitutes
agree
iner as the
art.” We
of a
a bar
issuance
valid
this conclusion
examiner. Thus it
invention,
Mil
same
Alexander
apparent
is
that the claimed
mat-
Co.,
burn
Davis-Bournonville
Co. v.
literally
ter
explicitly
has not
been
L.Ed. 651
U.S.
46 S.Ct.
patent upon
“described” in the
which the
(1926),
102(e),
or obvious
codified
predicated.
§
Nor is the fac-
Research,
thereof,
variations
Hazeltine
presented
tual situation
here
the ’806
Brenner,
v.
Inc.
382 U.S.
S.Ct.
Margerison patent
com-
(1965).
It is also parable
L.Ed.2d 304
present
the factual situations
pur
well settled
where a
Goodyear,
and Switzer
Asseff
ports on its face
“continuation- cases,
to be a
supra,
since the
and ’806
in-part”
prior application,
the con
application are not “as one” insofar as
tinuation-in-part application
entitled
matter of
2 is con-
filing
parent applica
date of
cerned.
*7
subject
to
tion as
all
matter carried over
dispose
Those observations do not
of
parent application,
it
the
into
from
problem
us,
the
before
however.
ex-
obtaining
pat
purposes
whether for
a
aminer has stated that the disclosure of
utilizing
patent
subsequently
ent or
Example
appli-
2 of the abandoned ’806
defeat another’s
disclosure as evidence to
“incorporated by
cation has been
refer-
right
patent.
102(e),
to a
35 U.S.C. §§
patent
ence” into the
disclosure. The
120; Goodyear
v.
Tire & Rubber Co.
inference we draw from the examiner’s
Ladd,
275,
U.S.App.D.C.
121
F.2d
349
and board’s
that
view
statements is
(1965),
acknowledgment
specification
patent
denied 382
certiorari
U.S.
rejec-
Switzer,
plications
In
in the
this court affirmed a
were referred to
which
patent
co-pending applica-
Hempel
tion of certain claims directed to the use
application
patent
of carbon black
a resin as obvious
tions of which
references,
continuation-in-part.
one of which
Those
view
several
was
a
applications
part
described the use of titanium dioxide
a
of the rec-
earlier
:
resin. The court stated
ord herein and two of them disclose
correctly
just
examiner
held that
titanium dioxide
use
*
*
*
added)
[appellants]
patent
(Emphasis
did
ante-
does.
not
ap-
date or
abandoned
avoid the three
“continuation-in-part”
closure of the
it
nature
2 is
is a
present
application
’806
as accom-
abandoned
earlier
plishing incorporation
part
entire dis-
it should be
considered a
patent specification.
in-
closure
abandoned
Thus we can-
cluding
agree
Example 2,
not
into
matter of
ap-
tacitly
patent,
claim is
with the result that
“described” in the
pellants’
described,
patent
meaning
within the
invention is
if not
102(e).
explicitly,
implicitly
the Mar- of
least
§
gerison patent.
examiner,
solicitor,
well
as the
rely on this
decision
In
re
court’s
recognize that,
to
We
Heritage
support
to
the view that
compliance with 35
U.S.C. §§
Margerison patent
manner in
which
132,
patent applica
in a
to the
refers
abandoned
may
deliberately supplemented
tion
incorporation by
here amounts to an
ref-
completed by
set
reference to disclosure
erence in the
of the entire dis-
patents,
forth in other
National Latex
application.
closure of the abandoned
Co.,
Products
Rubber
F.2d
v. Sun
Co.
support-
We
ing
not see
do
that decision as
Cir.,
(6
1959);
Chaplin,
In re
proposition.
this
There
court
1155;
168 F.2d
In re
CCPA
Stau
approved
finding
board’s
ber,
45 F.2d
to
CCPA
dis
employed
Finck
as a reference
concurrently
closure in earlier or
filed
earlier, copending,
had
to
referred
copending applications,
Ziegler,
re
In
subsequently
in a
Fried,
F.2d
53 CCPA
re
“part
to
it
manner
make
F.2d
CCPA
disclosure.” The court stated:
Heritage,
abandoned,
have become
In re
1109, or,
gen
Primary
spe-
F.2d
While
Examiner
eral,
cifically
copending ap-
to “disclosure
stated
available
public,”
Heritage.
plication
Finck,
the
pression
In re
ex
As the
referred
in his
implies,
purpose
subsequently abandoned,
itself
fully set out therein.
apparent
the latter
“incorporation by
one
document
document
referencing
that the cited document is
by referring
such
become
reference” is to
document as it it were
a manner that
to the
part
of another
former
make
it is
part
was
part
peals
ence
We
*
to the
held
do not
disclosure of
relied
that the disclosure
deem
*
upon,
disclosure.
*
necessary
the Board of
*
to refer
*
-x-
refer-
was
Ap-
plication
pat-
referred
in the Finck
Here, however
do not think
ent, although,
opinion,
in our
such ref-
single
that the
sentence
which Mar
properly
erence was
discussed
gerison
application—
refers to his earlier
There
be no
board’s decision.
can
present application
“The
is a continua
patent applica-
question but that in a
tion-in-part application
applica
of our
tion,
disclosure thereof
763,806,
September
tion
supplemented by
reference
another
(now abandoned)”
suffi
—is
Stauber,
*8
cient in
and
itself to render
(Patents)
18
C.C.P.A.
application part
abandoned
patent
fully
disclosure
if
as
set out
It must be
remembered
by
application
There
therein.
is little in the term
not
“con
itself was
tinuation-in-part”
suggest
reference,
by
which
as a
and
would
cited
the board
patent
by
pat-
of the
it
reader
that a
since was referred to
dis-
Examining
peating
portion
8. The Manual of
all
Proce-
some
substantial
adding
201.08,
application
dure. section
states:
earlier
continuation-in-part
applica-
A
is
an
matter not disclosed
the said earlier
during
1930,
(In
Klein,
O.G.
tion filed
the lifetime of an earli-
case.
re
C.D.
by
application
applicant,
519.)
er
the same
re-
surely
apparent
It
specification,
it
be-
to this court.
should be
in his
entee
stating
pat-
court,
out
the Finck
set
part
the disclosure
came
law,
applica-
ent
Furthermore,
“referred
is sound
to”
it
therein.
tion,
imply
any
any
to
did not
reference
intend to
opinion,
in our
appli-
to the manner of
to
earlier
reference
is available
which
a disclosure
incorporate
permissible.
Hamilton
cation was
sufficient
to
public
is
Cir.,
Massengill,
any part
Laboratories,
entire disclosure or
thereof
Inc. v.
584,
denied
reference into the
think
certiorari
We
111 F.2d
patent
85 L.Ed.
manner
in which
Finck
61 S.Ct.
311 U.S.
thereby incorporated
appellant
their brief
to”
“referred
Counsel
part
the abandoned Finck
as
the abandoned
stated that
clearly distinguished
of the disclosure is
However,
public.
open to the
was
present
from the
The remain-
situation.
suitable
after
shows and
the record
ing
here,
cases
cited
solicitor
all
made such
had been
petition for access
Heritage
of which cite and follow
—Rolls
granted.
had been
access
Royce Ltd., Derby, England v. United
the Finck
the manner
in which
While
States,
Ct.Cl.
in-
was
disclosure
(1964) 10; Technograph
Printed Cir-
supplement
corporated
reference
cuits,
Corp.,
Ltd. v. Bendix Aviation
entirely
clear
is not
D.C.,
F.Supp.
aff’d 327 F.2d
Heritage opinion,
the manner
from the
(4 Cir., 1964);
B. F. Goodrich
v.Co.
of the
clearly
reflected in
decision
D.C.,
Heritage,
Co.,
F.Supp. 40,
U. S. Rubber
Appeals
Ex Parte
Board of
USPQ 179,9
58,11
1957)—
(4 Cir.,
involved a Heri-
which
aff’d
992 knowledge Wilson, v. 48 F.2d itself Fessenden as evidence of 18 whether it is available as evidence CCPA See, generally, all. Patent, The Corn-Planter Tenney, 45 In re 254 F.2d U.S.) 210-211, (90 23 Wall. (1874);
Goodyear Co., Pro- Tire Manual & Rubber cedure, 901.02, (2nd Cir., 1930); F.2d 901.01 §§